Age and Gender Differences in Narcissism: A Comprehensive Study Across Eight Measures and Over 250,000 Participants

AGE AND GENDER DIFFERENCES IN NARCISSISM MEASURES 1
Age and Gender Differences in Narcissism:

A Comprehensive Study Across Eight Measures and Over 250,000 Participants
Rebekka Weidmann
Michigan State University
University of Basel
William J. Chopik
Michigan State University
Robert A. Ackerman
The University of Texas at Dallas
Marc Allroggen
University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany
Emily C. Bianchi
Emory University
Courtney Brecheen
The University of Texas at Dallas
W. Keith Campbell
University of Georgia
Tanja M. Gerlach
Queen’s University of Belfast
Georg August University Göttingen
Katharina Geukes
University of Münster
Emily Grijalva
University at Buffalo
Igor Grossmann
University of Waterloo
Christopher J. Hopwood
University of Zurich
Roos Hutteman
Utrecht University
Sara Konrath
Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis
Albrecht C. P. Küfner
Marius Leckelt
Joshua D. Miller
University of Georgia
Lars Penke
Georg August University Göttingen
Aaron L. Pincus
The Pennsylvania State University
Karl-Heinz Renner
Bundeswehr University Munich
David Richter
SHARE BERLIN Institute
Brent W. Roberts
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champagne
Chris G. Sibley
University of Auckland
Leonard J. Simms
University at Buffalo
Eunike Wetzel
University of Koblenz-Landau
Aidan G.C. Wright

University of Pittsburgh
Mitja D. Back
_______________________________________
This paper was accepted for publication in the Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology (01/31/2023).
Author Note
Corresponding author’s contact information: Rebekka Weidmann, Department of
Psychology, Michigan State University, 316 Physics Rd, East Lansing, MI 48823, USA.
weidma12@msu.edu. Rebekka Weidmann is also an Adjunct Senior Researcher at University of
Basel, Switzerland.
Study 1 and 2 were not preregistered. The data, syntax, and materials for Study 1 are
provided on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/gp6a4/
Due to the sensitivity of some of the data collections/participant samples and data use
access agreements restricting their public dissemination (e.g., clinical samples, proprietary
samples, NIH's NESARC-III study), we were unable to share all data of Study 2. However, all
sharable data can be found on the Open Science Framework (OSF): https://osf.io/gp6a4/.
However, this means that the results based on this shared subset might will not fully match the
overall results in the manuscript (e.g., Sample 40’s data could not be shared publicly).
This research was supported in part by the National Institute of Mental Health (L30
MH101760), the University of Pittsburgh’s Clinical and Translational Science Institute, which is
funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical and Translational Science Award
(CTSA) program (UL1 TR001857), and grants from the University of Pittsburgh Central
Research Development Fund and a Steven D. Manners Faculty Development Award from the
University of Pittsburgh University Center for Social and Urban Research granted to Aidan G. C.
Wright. The present research was also funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada Insight Grants (435-2014-0685), Early Researcher Award from the Ontario
Ministry of Research, Innovation, and Science (ER16-12-169), and Templeton Pathways to
Character Award granted to Igor Grossmann. The New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study is
supported by a grant from the Templeton Religion Trust (TRT0196) granted to Chris G. Sibley.
This research was further supported by a Postdoc.Mobility Fellowship (P400PS_186724) of the
Swiss National Science Foundation granted to Rebekka Weidmann. Sara Konrath was supported
by grants from AmeriCorps (formerly, the Corporation for National and Community Service:
17REHIN002), the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development (R25-HD083146), and Heterodox Academy, while writing this manuscript.

Abstract
Age and gender differences in narcissism have been studied often. However, considering
the rich history of narcissism research accompanied by its diverging conceptualizations, little is
known about age and gender differences across various narcissism measures. The present study
investigated age and gender differences and their interactions across eight widely used
narcissism instruments (i.e., Narcissistic Personality Inventory, Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale,
Dirty Dozen, Psychological Entitlement Scale, DSM-IV NPD, Narcissistic Admiration and
Rivalry Questionnaire-Short Form, Single Item Narcissism Scale, and brief version of the
Pathological Narcissism Inventory). The findings of Study 1 (N = 5,736) revealed heterogeneity
in how strongly the measures correlated. Some instruments loaded clearly on one of three factors
proposed by previous research (i.e., neuroticism, extraversion, antagonism), while others cross-
loaded across factors and in distinct ways. Cross-sectional analyses using each measure and
meta-analytic results across all measures (Study 2) with a total sample of 270,029 participants
suggest consistent linear age effects (random effects meta-analytic effect of r = -.104), with
narcissism being highest in young adulthood. Consistent gender differences also emerged
(random effects meta-analytic effect was -.079), such that men scored higher in narcissism than
women. Quadratic age effects and age x gender effects were generally very small and
inconsistent. We conclude that despite the various conceptualizations of narcissism, age and
gender differences are generalizable across the eight measures used in the present study.
However, their size varied based on the instrument used. We discuss the sources of this
heterogeneity and the potential mechanisms for age and gender differences.
Keywords: narcissism; age differences; assessment; adult development; cohort
differences
Age Differences in Narcissism:
A Comprehensive Study Across Eight Measures and Over 250,000 Participants
The perception that younger people are more self-involved and narcissistic than older
people has been long prevailing. Indeed, longitudinal evidence suggests that as people age, they
become less narcissistic (e.g., Wetzel et al., 2020). In addition to age differences, gender
differences in narcissism have also been a popular research topic. Previous research suggests that
women and men differ in their narcissism levels in that men show on average higher narcissism
compared to women (e.g., Grijalva et al., 2015). Less is clear, however, how gender differences
map unto the lifespan of individuals and how gender differences might persist across the lifespan
or wane at certain life stages. In addition, what researchers and the public mean by “narcissism”
undoubtedly varies considerably. This is also evident when viewing the psychological history of
studying narcissism. Within social, personality, developmental, and clinical psychology, there is
a proliferation of measures of individual differences in narcissism. Some measures focus on the
grandiose aspects of narcissism, while others focus on the vulnerable aspects of narcissism.
These different conceptualizations might have implications for the conclusions about whether
and how much younger and older as well as female and male people differ from each other with
respect to narcissism. Research on cross-sectional age and gender differences is sparsely
available for many of the narcissism measures; are similar lifespan differences seen across
different conceptualizations and measurements of narcissism? Do men and women equally differ
across measures, and across the lifespan? The present study uses data from over 250,000 people
across eight different measures to examine cross-sectional age and gender differences and their
interactions in narcissism.
The Definition of Narcissism

A portion of the history of narcissism research is characterized by a series of defining, re-
defining, and circumscribing the nature of narcissism. However, in a recent preliminary synthesis
of the construct’s definitions, narcissism was described as “entitled self-importance” (Krizan &
Herlache, 2018, p. 8; see also Krizan, 2018) encompassing the core psychological aspect of
ascribing more importance and specialness to oneself and one’s needs compared to others.
Narcissism is a multidimensional construct that embodies a broad range of characteristic
expressions, behaviors, and self-regulatory tendencies (e.g., Aslinger et al., 2018; Back et al.,
2013; Holtzman et al., 2010; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001; Roche et al., 2013).
In more recent years, a preliminary consensus has been reached among scholars that
individual differences in narcissism can be understood from a trifurcated perspective (Ackerman
et al., 2019; Back, 2018; Crowe et al., 2019; Krizan & Herlache, 2018; Miller et al., 2017, 2021).
As such, narcissism includes agentic (also called narcissistic admiration), antagonistic (also
called narcissistic rivalry), and neurotic (or vulnerable) aspects of narcissism (Back, 2018;
Crowe et al., 2019; Miller et al., 2021). These three aspects can be situated in the Five Factor
Model of Personality, in that the agentic aspect is associated with higher extraversion, the
antagonistic aspect is associated with lower agreeableness, and the neurotic aspect with higher
neuroticism (e.g., Miller et al., 2017; Miller & Maples, 2011; Weiss & Miller, 2018). The former
two (i.e., agentic and antagonistic narcissism) also represent more overt forms of narcissism and
can be subsumed into a grandiosity factor of narcissism (e.g., Wink, 1991). Grandiose narcissism
reflects a tendency toward thoughts and behaviors characterized as egotistical, assertive,
dominant, and self-enhancing (i.e., agentic narcissism), and manipulative, malignant, self-
protective, and arrogant aspects of behavior (i.e., antagonistic narcissism) (Akhtar & Anderson
Thomson, 1982; Back, 2018; Cain et al., 2008; Gabbard, 1989; Wink, 1991). Neurotic narcissism
(also referred to as vulnerable narcissism) reflects a tendency toward being anxious, defensive,
contact-shunning, hypersensitive, discontent, and stems from a concern with one’s adequacy
(Akhtar & Anderson Thomson, 1982; Cain et al., 2008; Gabbard, 1989; Wink, 1991). Using this
broad definition, researchers have worked using these distinctions to try to characterize how
narcissism might differ across the lifespan.
Theoretical Assumptions and Longitudinal Evidence of Age Differences in Narcissism
Theoretical Approaches to Understanding the Lifespan Development of Narcissism
To understand how age differences in narcissism emerge, we draw upon several
theoretical postulations. For instance, narcissism has been implicated in the evolutionary
psychology literature, specifically how its variation is associated with functioning in long-term
romantic relationships, optimal parenting practices, or productive work behavior (e.g., Grijalva
& Newman, 2015; Hart et al., 2017; Wurst et al., 2017). Further, narcissism is linked to short-
term mating strategies, social status, and dominant behaviors (e.g., Cheng et al., 2010; Grapsas et
al., 2020; Holtzman & Donnellan, 2015). The adaptive nature of narcissism at various points of
the life course is a little more controversial (Hill & Lapsley, 2011). Ostensibly, narcissism is seen
as unproductive for pursuing long-term relationships and organizational citizenship behavior.
However, narcissism during young adulthood could have evolutionary adaptive benefits as it
may increase agency, guide calculated social risk taking, help with identity formation, and
scaffold self-esteem during difficult transitions (Hill & Lapsley, 2011; Hill & Roberts, 2012).
Likewise, the domain-level adaptation of narcissism enables individuals to acquire resources and
status and survive—concerns that may be particularly crucial among younger adults (Holtzman
& Strube, 2011).
In addition, people’s social goals shift as they age—which is in line with socioemotional
selectivity theory (Carstensen, 1995)—in that personal growth and status goals decrease across
the adult lifespan while prosocial-engagement goals increase (Bühler et al., 2019) and that
increases in social dominance start to stagnate at the age of 40 (Roberts et al., 2006). It could
therefore be expected that narcissism would decline with increasing age as people strive to meet
the expectations of long-term social roles.
This thinking is in line with principles put forth by the social investment theory (Roberts
et al., 2005, 2008; Roberts & Wood, 2006) and developmental task theories (Havighurst, 1972;
Hutteman et al., 2014) postulating that investing in social roles stimulates development in
people’s personality toward a mature direction—potentially marked with decreases in
narcissism. This means that people transitioning into these roles likely become more
conscientious, agreeable, and emotionally stable (e.g., Bleidorn et al., 2013). Given that
antagonistic narcissism is related to lower levels of agreeableness, agentic narcissism linked to
higher levels of extraversion, and vulnerable narcissism associated with higher neuroticism (e.g.,
Du et al., 2021; Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Miller et al., 2018), it is likely that narcissism might
also decrease during young adulthood through similar processes of adopting and investing in
social roles.
In addition, opportunities to fail—and the actual number of failures—increases with age.
These challenges and potential failures might accumulate and reduce narcissism over time
(Foster et al., 2003). Additionally, psychological disorders, such as depression, anxiety, and
personality disorders, have been found to be less likely with older age (Jorm, 2000; Kessler et al.,
2010; Samuels et al., 2002). This abatement of mental illness and antagonistic characteristics has
also been labeled “disorder burnout” (Foster et al., 2003) and might also apply to narcissism as
an individual difference characteristic. These theoretical postulations would be reflected in cross-

sectional age differences in which middle-aged and older-aged adults are lower in narcissism
compared to younger adults.
Evaluating the Current Generational and Longitudinal Evidence of Lifespan Differences in
Narcissism
It needs to be acknowledged, however, that age differences in narcissism could also stem
from generational (i.e., cohort) effects (Schaie, 1965). Such cohort effects could emerge because
the socio-cultural context of younger cohorts has shifted to a more self-centered culture. The use
of social media among younger generations (e.g., Van Volkom et al., 2013) with its consistent
link to narcissism (McCain & Campbell, 2018) as well as a cultural shift in the USA towards an
increase in individualistic tendencies (Twenge & Foster, 2010) have been proposed as reasons
why birth cohorts differ in narcissism. A handful of longitudinal studies have examined age
changes across several years or even the entire adult life span. Carlson and Gjerde (2009) using
the California Child (or Adult) Q-set, found that narcissism increases between the age of 14 and
18 and stabilizes (i.e., non-significantly decline) until the age of 23. Wetzel and colleagues
(2020) using the Narcissistic Personality Inventory found likewise that narcissism and its facets
(i.e., leadership, vanity, and entitlement) decreases across 23 years from young adulthood to
midlife. Chopik and Grimm (2019) studied six different longitudinal datasets and found
decreases across the lifespan in a California Adult Q-set-derived hypersensitivity (i.e., defensive
narcissism) and willfulness (i.e., grandiose narcissism), while they found increases in autonomy
(i.e., adaptive narcissism) (see also Edelstein et al., 2012; note, this Q-set measure was yet
different than the one used in Carlson and Gjerde, [2009]). Finally, Grosz and colleagues (2019)
found stable levels of narcissistic admiration across two samples spanning ages 19.5 and 29.5
using six items of the NPI.

Even from these few longitudinal studies, it is evident that many different instruments
and conceptualization of narcissism have been used to study age differences in ostensibly the
same phenomenon. However, these measures are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to
measuring narcissism. This variety in narcissism instruments is in part because the definition of
narcissism has diverged across research groups, methodological approaches, historical time
period, and clinical diagnosis. Thus, the corresponding measures that researchers often use do
not necessarily cover the three narcissism dimensions of the current definition of narcissism
equally. Some measures focus on agentic or antagonistic forms of grandiose narcissism, while
others measure entitlement or neurotic narcissism, or general narcissism. Having an
understanding about the heterogeneity of how narcissism is measured can provide a more
complete picture of how narcissism differs across adult life stages.
Cross-Sectional Age Differences in Narcissism across Instruments
Using the above-mentioned narcissism measures, previous studies have formally
examined age differences with cross-sectional data. An overview of the measures and their
respective cross-sectional studies on age differences can be found in Table 1. Age has been
found to have a negative association with narcissism when measured with the NPI (e.g., Cai et
al., 2012; Carter et al., 2012; Foster et al., 2003; Hill & Roberts, 2012; Roberts et al., 2010;
Wilson & Sibley, 2011, Study 2), the HSNS (Barlett & Barlett, 2015), the PES (Wilson &
Sibley, 2011, Study 1), and the DSM-IV NPD (Pulay et al., 2011; Stinson et al., 2008). These
studies represent efforts to formally examine age differences (and moderators of age differences)
in narcissism, but there are likely others that report bivariate correlations (i.e., linear
associations) between age and narcissism (or have this information but do not report it).
What becomes evident from Table 1 is that previous studies have most notably focused
on understanding age differences in the NPI, a measure for grandiose narcissism. However, a
formal examination of age differences across all those measures is absent in the literature.
Furthermore, whether age differences generalize across shorter scales (e.g., SINS, B-PNI) and
across different facets of grandiose narcissism (i.e., NARQ-S) in a comparable way has not been
investigated either. Thus, to provide narcissism researchers with a comprehensive picture of the
age differences across these commonly adopted measures, it is one goal of the present article to
provide a clearer understanding of how age differences generalize or differ across instruments
and different narcissism facets with a large, age-heterogenous sample. We also meta-analyze
across these instruments to better understand how age is linked to narcissism on average—across
all measures. Worth noting, some of the data sets included in the current investigation have been
used in previously published work on age differences (e.g., Foster et al., 2003; see Tables 1 and
3). However, these studies varied in whether they considered non-linear age differences, whether
they examined gender differences (and age x gender interactions), and their general analytic
approach (e.g., simple bivariate correlations, sub-setting the sample by gender, or moderated
regressions). Examining such individual samples in isolation likely does not provide enough
statistical power to reliably detect two-way interactions. In the current study, we aggregated
these data sets to provide a more robust examination of age and gender differences (and their
interactions) and draw preliminary comparisons across different inventories.
Gender Differences in Narcissism across Instruments
It could also be theorized that narcissism differs across female and male people. Social
role theory is one potential explanation for gender differences in narcissism. Social role theory is
based on beliefs about gender roles, which are assumed to be established by observing men and
women in their behaviors and different gendered roles and attributing the different behaviors to
intrinsic trait dispositions. Gender role beliefs are then internalized as normative gender
stereotypical behaviors and traits, which serve as the standards to which individuals compare
their own behavior (Eagly, 1987; Eagly & Wood, 1999, 2011). Generally, more agentic traits,
such as being self-assertive, dominant, and confident are ascribed to a male gender stereotype;
more communal traits, such as being warm, nurturing, and helpful are ascribed to a female
gender stereotype (e.g., Bakan, 1966; Deaux & LaFrance, 1998; Martin, 1987). Thus, given that
narcissism—especially grandiose narcissism—embodies several agentic characteristics, social
role theory could be one potential explanation why men display higher narcissism levels
compared to women. Another explanation for the gender differences suggests that men are more
likely to receive admiration for themselves while women might be more likely to receive
admiration by associating themselves with admirable persons (Philipson, 1985), which might be
another potential reason for disparities in narcissism across gender.
Previous research paints a consistent picture of gender differences in narcissism: Men
tend to report higher levels of narcissism compared to women (for a meta-analysis, see Grijalva
et al., 2015). This is also in line with gender differences found for the Big Five trait
agreeableness: men generally report lower levels of agreeableness (i.e., the antagonistic part of
narcissism; Schmitt et al., 2008). Even though the meta-analysis of Grijalva and colleagues is
very comprehensive and included a variety of different narcissism scales, some scales included
in the present study were not examined in the meta-analysis (e.g., PES, DSM-IV NPD, SINS) or
only their longer-format predecessors have been included (e.g., NARQ, PNI). Nevertheless,
these scales are also increasingly used among researchers and learning more about the gender
differences across these scales helps complete the picture of how narcissism levels vary across
women and men.

Age x Gender Interactions in Narcissism across Instruments
The meta-analysis of Grijalva et al. (2015) also suggests that there is little to no evidence
for variation in gender differences across the lifespan and across cohorts. And thus, the gender
differences seem to be comparable in magnitude across a large portion of the lifespan. However,
as the authors lamented themselves, the study results cannot speak to gender differences in
middle age and later adulthood (ages 55+ years). It therefore remains unclear to what extent
gender differences remain constant or vary across the entire adult life span. Are older men and
women as different as younger men and women in their narcissism?
During some life stages, gender differences in narcissism could be more pronounced,
leading to the prediction that age might moderate gender differences in narcissism. For instance,
during the reproductive years, women who have children are more involved in childcare
responsibilities than men (Orloff, 2002) and participate less in the workforce (e.g., Gibb et al.,
2014). Furthermore, women generally work less in STEM fields (Okrent & Burke, 2021) and
more in occupations like nursing (WHO, 2022) or teaching (National Center of Education
Statistics, 2018) — jobs that require high agreeableness levels. Hence, during the reproductive
and working years, a larger gender gap in narcissism could be possible given that women are
more likely to find themselves, on average, in roles and work positions that require agreeableness
(and less antagonism and narcissism). Altogether, it is possible that socialization experiences—
or the accumulation or abatement of their influences over time—might manifest themselves as
smaller or larger gender differences in narcissism across age. But the exact pattern for how
gender differences might vary by age is a bit unclear, and there are a few reasons to expect
particular patterns. For example, there is some evidence to suggest that engagement in sustained
career success leads to increases in agency and autonomy (Abele, 2003), and women’s increases
in autonomy—a close correlate of grandiose narcissism—are more dramatic than men’s
increases in young adulthood and middle age (Chopik & Grimm, 2019). Thus, it could be
expected that women and men differ in their narcissism levels during the reproductive and
working years. In contrast, smaller gender differences could be observed after middle adulthood
due to hormonal changes or after retirement due to changes in the gendered division of labor
(Grijalva et al., 2015). Lastly, gender differences could also remain constant across the lifespan
given the continual status and socialization experiences of women and men across the entire
lifespan (Philipson, 1985; Stewart & Healy, 1989; Tschanz et al., 1998; Twenge, 2009). Thus,
the present study examines gender differences across the adult lifespan to answer the question if
the differences between women and men in narcissism are shaped similarly or differently at
different life ages.
The Present Study
No previous study has undertaken a concerted effort to examine cross-sectional age and
gender differences in narcissism across various narcissism measures. Specifically, no studies
have applied a consistent analytic approach using large samples of participants to test linear and
quadratic associations between age and narcissism, associations between gender and narcissism,
and age x gender interactions. Further, although gender differences in narcissism have been the
subject of previous research, the extent to which gender moderates age differences in narcissism
across the entire adult lifespan—and the degree to which these moderating effects are consistent
across measures is unclear.
More broadly, examining the consistency of age and gender differences in narcissism
using different measures might have the following implications for the field. First, if the present
study finds significant variations in the age and gender differences across measures, previous and
future research needs to be interpreted in the light of these instrument-dependent differences.
Furthermore, such variation in age and gender differences might spur further research that
examines why some instruments and conceptualizations find age and gender differences in
narcissism and its facets while others do not, given that age and gender differences could also
depend heavily on a particular facet or subscale used. Second, if the present study finds uniform
age and gender differences across measures or if the age and gender effects between measures
are minimal, age and gender-related differences reported for one measure in past and future
research likely generalizes across instruments. This raises confidence in how age/gender and
narcissism are associated, regardless of the particular way in which narcissism is operationalized.
In addition, the present study also uses a large sample to examine the age x gender
interactions of narcissism across different measures. The present study will use a sample with a
larger age range (15-99 years) to describe how gender differences are the same or differ across
young, middle, and late adulthood. These findings might provide a first steppingstone in
describing the developmental and cohort differences that might occur between women and men’s
narcissism across the adult lifespan and might spur theorizing about their developmental and
cohort differences.
It is thus the goal of the present article to examine age and gender differences in eight
prominently used narcissism measures across 42 large data sets including over 250,000
participants. Before doing that, however, we first establish that the different measures show
sufficient independence. This provided us with the justification for studying age differences
across different narcissism measures as they tap into different domains and facets of the same
construct but do not uniformly measure the same construct. In line with theory and previous
longitudinal and cross-sectional evidence, we expect to see a negative link between age and
narcissism, in that younger adults would report higher levels of narcissism compared to older
adults. These age differences are not only expected on the level of narcissism or its composite
score (depending on the instrument used) but also on the level of narcissism facets or subscales.
We also expect to find gender differences, in that men show higher levels of narcissism
compared to women.
Study 1
The goal of Study 1 was to provide descriptive information about the empirical overlap
between the measures of narcissism used in Study 2. Prior to proceeding with Study 2 (which
examines the measures in different samples separately), we wanted to quantify how highly
correlated the ostensible measures of narcissism were within one sample. This serves two
purposes. First, with Study 1, we could establish if measures were multicollinear (r ≥ .80) or not.
If they were multicollinear, testing different samples and instruments would likely lead to very
similar age and gender differences. If they are not multicollinear, Study 2 has a stronger
justification as it examined age and gender differences in measures that do not depict the exact
same narcissism construct but slightly deviating narcissism facets (or other, narcissism-adjacent
characteristics, depending on how poorly correlated they are). Second, defining the degree of
correlation between the different measures aided in interpreting the results of Study 2. If the
overlap was high (r ≥ .80; i.e., the measures being multicollinear), it would suggest that the
different instruments measure the same construct (i.e., narcissism). If the age and gender
differences obtained in Study 2 were very similar, we can conclude that (a) it is because they
likely measure a highly similar construct. If the age and gender differences diverged and are
nothing alike, that might indicate that (b) heterogeneity might be attributable to sampling
variability. If the overlap is moderate (r > .30 and < .80), it suggests that the different instruments
measure similar constructs that are closely related to each other (but may not necessarily be
“narcissism” in the way that each scale defines it).
More simply, similar age and gender differences across measures in Study 2 could occur
because of the high correlation between measures (i.e., narcissism). Differing age and gender
differences across measures in Study 2 could occur because these measures also cover different
aspects of narcissism (e.g., vulnerable vs. grandiose narcissism) but could potentially mean they
cover different constructs. Lastly, if the overlap is small (r ≤ .30), it suggests that the different
instruments tap into different constructs that have been misleadingly labeled narcissism (i.e.,
jingle fallacy). Thus, depending on how the sex and gender differences emerge across the
different measurements in Study 2, knowing how strongly the instruments overlap will inform
the interpretation of these findings and strengthen the guidance provided for future research
(Study 1).
We recruited a sample of 5,736 participants who completed the eight different narcissism
measures, and then we examined correlations between them and their subscales. Ethical approval
for this study was granted from the Institutional Review Board of the [blinded] University (x16-
1291e).
Method
Participants
Participants were 5,736 students and community members (66.1% female, 33.5% male,
.4% other; Mage = 21.84, SD = 7.64, range = 18-75) recruited through the subject pool at a large
university (89.5%) and from Amazon Mechanical Turk (10.5%; compensated $3.00). All
respondents were from the United States and were English speakers (and received English
versions of the scales). The racial/ethnic breakdown of the sample was 68.1% White/Caucasian,
12.3% Asian, 9.2% Black/African American, 3.9% Hispanic/Latino, 4.0% multiracial, and 2.5%
other races/ethnicities. Participants were recruited from May 2017 until April 2021. The HSNS
and DDN measures were added late to Study 1 as it became apparent that data in Study 2 could
be available. In addition, the DDN, PES, DSM-IV, NPD, and NARQ-S were randomly assigned
to reduce participant burden. The participants were assigned to four of the five surveys (see Little
& Rhemtulla, 2013; Revelle et al., 2016; Zhang & Yu, 2021 for more ideal approaches). As a
result, the valid Ns for the bivariate correlations ranged from 2,721 to 4,838. A sample size of
2,721 enabled us to detect effect sizes as small as r = .05 at 83% power at α = .05.
Measures
Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI)
The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) is a 40-item, forced-choice, self-report
measure of grandiose narcissism (Raskin & Terry, 1988). Participants chose between one of two
options for 40 pairs (sample item: “The thought of ruling the world frightens the hell out of me v.
If I ruled the world, it would be a better place”). We also computed three NPI subscales (LA:
Leadership/authority, GE: Grandiose exhibitionism, and EE: Entitlement/Exploitativeness)
identified by Ackerman and colleagues (2011).
Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale (HSNS)
Hypersensitive narcissism (i.e., a vulnerable form of narcissism that exists in the context
of self-absorption; derived from writings of Murray, 1938) was measured with the HSNS
(Hendin & Cheek, 1997). Participants responded with the agreement to 10 items (e.g., “My
feelings are easily hurt by ridicule or the slighting remarks of others.”) on a scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Dirty Dozen Narcissism (DDN)

The Dark Triad is a framework that conceptualizes individual differences in three
malevolent personality traits—narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy (Paulhus &
Williams, 2002). There have been a number of psychometric efforts to make abbreviated forms
of the Dark Triad measure. In the current studies, we focused on the short-form scale of
narcissism from the Dirty Dozen (DD; Jonason & Webster, 2010). DD narcissism is a 4-item
measure (e.g., “I tend to want others to admire me.”). Participants responded to each question
indicating their agreement on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Psychological Entitlement Scale (PES)
The two highest-loading items from the Psychological Entitlement Scale (PES; Campbell
et al., 2004) were administered. Participants rated the two items (“Feel entitled to more of
everything” and “Deserve more things in life”) on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree). Two items were chosen to maximize the participant response rate for such a
large survey in Sample 36. Worth noting, this shorter form correlates highly with the longer form
measures (r = .86; see Supplemental Excel Table 1 on the OSF page)1.
Narcissistic Personality Disorder Symptoms from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders, version IV (DSM-IV NPD)
Narcissism as conceptualized in the DSM-IV was measured via 18 forced-choice items to
gauge nine subdimensions of narcissistic personality disorder (Stinson et al., 2008). Sample
items include, “Have you felt that you were the kind of person who deserves special treatment?”
As in previous research (e.g., Bianchi, 2014), we used a continuous measure of narcissism by
averaging the number of symptoms across the items.
1
Similarly high overlap is found between all short forms used for the present article and their long-form
counterparts. Worth noting, however, is that independent administrations are necessary to see if short and long-
forms indeed have sufficient overlapping variance so that one could reasonably take the place of the other.
Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire-Short Form (NARQ-S)
The NARQ-S is a 6-item measure that taps into narcissistic admiration and rivalry (Back
et al., 2013; Leckelt et al., 2018). The 3-item admiration subscale assesses the agentic parts of
grandiose narcissism (sample item: “I manage to be the center of attention with my outstanding
contributions.”). The 3-item rivalry subscale assesses the antagonistic parts of grandiose
narcissism (sample item: “I want my rivals to fail.”). Participants indicated the degree to which
they agree with each item ranging on a scale from 1 (not agree at all) to 6 (agree completely). A
composite measure of NARQ-Narcissism was also calculated by averaging all six items (ωhs >
.63; αs > .61). Each subscale can be further divided into subcomponents (affective-motivational,
behavioral, and cognitive), but we focus the current investigation on comparing age differences
across the broader subscales of each measure.
Single Item Narcissism Scale (SINS)
The Single Item Narcissism Scale (SINS; Konrath et al., 2014) assesses narcissism via
the item, “To what extent do you agree with this statement: I am a narcissist. (Note: The word
‘narcissist’ means egotistical, self-focused, and vain.)” on a scale ranging from 1 (not very true
of me) to 7 (very true of me). The SINS has undergone extensive validity efforts—the SINS
correlates well with the NPI and other related constructs (self-esteem, empathy, self-focus,
personality), demonstrates high test-retest reliability (r = .79 over an 11-day period), and was
associated with both self-report and behavioral measures (e.g., sexual behavior, aggression).
Brief version of the Pathological Narcissism Inventory (B-PNI)
The B-PNI is a 28-item measure of seven different facets (and two superordinate facets of
Grandiosity and Vulnerability) (Schoenleber et al., 2015). Participants were instructed to indicate
the degree to which each statement described them on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all like me)
to 6 (very much like me). Additional details about the full measure and operationalization of
narcissism is reported elsewhere (Pincus, 2009; Wright et al., 2010).
Regarding the subscales of the B-PNI, exploitativeness reflects a manipulative
interpersonal orientation; self-sacrificing self-enhancement reflects the use of ostensibly altruistic
acts to portray an inflated self-image; grandiose fantasy reflects engagement in compensatory
fantasies of gaining success, admiration, and recognition. Grandiosity as operationalized by the
B-PNI is an aggregate of exploitativeness, self-sacrificing self-enhancement, and grandiose
fantasy.
Contingent self-esteem reflects a precarious and fluctuating experience of self-esteem and
acknowledgement of dysregulation in the absence of external sources of admiration and
recognition; Hiding the self reflects an unwillingness to show others one’s faults and needs;
Devaluing reflects a disinterest in others who do not provide needed admiration and shame over
needing recognition from disappointing others; Entitlement rage reflects angry affects when
entitled expectations are not met. Vulnerability as operationalized by the B-PNI is an aggregate
of contingent self-esteem, hiding the self, devaluing, and entitlement rage.
Study 1 was not preregistered. The data, syntax, and materials for Study 1 are provided
on the Open Science Framework (OSF): https://osf.io/gp6a4/.
Results
Correlations
Correlations, descriptive statistics, and Cronbach’s alphas for each scale can be seen in
Table 2. As expected, the highest correlations present were between subscales from the same
measure. DD narcissism (rs ranged from .15 to .56; rmean = .42) and DSM-IV NPD (rs ranged
from .18 to .54; rmean = .40) were most strongly related to the various measures of narcissism.
The NARQ scales (rs ranged from .08 to .59; rmean = .38), hypersensitive narcissism (rs ranged
from .00 to .62; rmean = .34), and the PES (rs ranged from .12 to .51; rmean = .34) all had
comparable levels of associations with the other measures of narcissism. Finally, the NPI scales
(rs ranged from -.11 to .57; rmean = .27), B-PNI scales (rs ranged from -.10 to .62; rmean = .29),
and the SINS (rs ranged from .10 to .41; rmean = .29) were related in a similar magnitude across
measures.2
Altogether, all the measures of narcissism did not display multicollinearity among each
other, which justified Study 2 to model age and gender differences separately by narcissism
inventory. Further, the range of the size of correlations between different measures was
substantial, suggesting large heterogeneity in the overlap of the different narcissism measures.
Correlations between different measures vary from r = .000 between the HSNS and the NPI
Leadership/Authority facet to r = .615 between the PNI Vulnerability facet and the HSNS. These
results indicate that while some measures more closely depict similar narcissism facets, other
instruments are unrelated to each other and might be measuring unassociated constructs.
Post-Hoc Factor Analysis
To examine whether the narcissism measures could be more parsimoniously grouped and
to guide our discussion and interpretation of the results, we followed the practice of Crowe et al.
(2019) and a recommendation from a reviewer by subjecting the data in Study 1 to a factor
analysis. Crowe and colleagues used a similar approach, having participants complete multiple
2
A reviewer recommended that we examine careless/insufficient effort responding across the narcissism scales
(Curran, 2016). In a long-string analysis, we found that men (compared to women) produced longer strings for the
NPI (r = -.065, p < .001), HSNS (r = -.049, p = .006), PES (r = -.089, p < .001), and the B-PNI (r = -.048, p = .002).
Older adults (compared to younger adults) produced longer strings for the DDN (r = .060, p = .001), PES (r = .034,
p = .028), and the DSM measure (r = .035, p = .028). Long-string tendencies for age and gender for the other
measures were not significant (ps > .069). Although age and gender differences were not the main focus of Study 1,
it is worth noting that the age and gender differences only changed negligibly after controlling for long-string
tendencies (e.g., sometimes controlling for IER resulted in minor increases or decreases in the magnitude of the
difference [often to the hundredth or thousandth decimal], but no changes in significance became evident).
measures of narcissism, with some scales overlapping between their study and the present study
(but not all). The authors found that a three-factor solution—one that includes agentic
extraversion, narcissistic neuroticism, and self-centered antagonism (similar to the trifurcated
model introduced earlier) —could parsimoniously explain variation across these scales, a major
boon for organizing variation across so many different inventories that claim to measure
narcissism.
As seen in Table 3, the results of the factor analysis from our study suggest only partial
support for the three-factor model suggested by Crowe et al. (2019). Indeed, many of the scales
fell along the lines of the three-factor model. However, there were some notable areas of
departure. First, cross-loadings were high (which they also were in Crowe et al.), suggesting that,
occasionally, some narcissism measures loaded just as highly on one factor as another. Second,
some factor loadings were higher on a factor inconsistent with the original solution (i.e., PNI-ER
and HSNS highly loaded on self-centered antagonism instead of the proposed narcissistic
neuroticism). And finally, some scales (e.g., the Dirty Dozen, NARQ) loaded equally well on
one factor as another, introducing some confusion about exactly how these measures should be
categorized according to the three-factor model.
Worth noting, by including all of the narcissism scales and subscales within one factor
analysis, redundancies are unfortunately added to the model (e.g., PNI items and content are
counted multiple times—in the most proximal subscales, mid-level subscales of Grandiosity and
Vulnerability, and the superordinate PNI Narcissism scale). When only the lowest level
subscales are included in the factor analysis, the rank-ordering of factor loadings and overall
interpretation are largely the same (see https://osf.io/gp6a4/).
In sum, the results of the correlations between instruments and the post-hoc factor
analysis across measures draw an inconclusive picture about the conceptual overlap between
scales and the underlying concept(s) that they are measuring. We return to this Discussion later
for making sense of heterogeneity in Study 2’s findings.
Study 2
Study 2 examined age differences in narcissism across the inventories included in Study
1. The data from Study 2 come from a consortium of individual difference and narcissism
researchers who contributed data they had been collecting throughout the years.
Based on previous research, we hypothesized that age would be negatively associated
with narcissism, such that younger adults would be higher in narcissism compared to older adults
(e.g., Barlett & Barlett, 2015; Foster et al., 2003; Hill & Roberts, 2012; Roberts et al., 2010;
Wilson & Sibley, 2011). We also examined whether age differences were consistent across the
various subscales of each inventory. We drew on 42 large data sets of individuals of different
ages who filled out different measures of narcissism. Ethical approval for Study 2 was granted
from the Institutional Review Board of the [blinded] University (STUDY00002967).
Method
Participants
Data from the current project comes from a large consortium of individual difference
researchers who contributed 42 different data sets that each contained at least one measure of
narcissism. The data sets comprised of 270,029 unique individuals recruited from representative
and convenience online surveys, panel studies, student subject pools, and community/clinical
samples (see Table 4 for a summary of each data set). Because some data sets contained multiple
measures of narcissism (often with a planned missingness design), the data were restructured to
form separate data sets for each measure (e.g., a NPI data set). This involved combining all the
data containing a particular measure across the data sets to yield 8 data sets (one for each
measure), some of which had overlapping participants (n = 49,744). Information on education
and race/ethnicity was inconsistently collected or was relatively homogenous across a particular
sample. Thus, we were unable to report or model differences according to these characteristics.
These 42 data sets were rearranged and combined to yield 8 data sets. The 42 samples
were combined into 8 samples (denoted by the 8 different measures) to run more highly powered
analyses and reduce the number of tests rather than testing our question on several smaller
samples (Schimmack, 2012). A summary of these data can be found in Table 5.
Measures
The eight measures used in Study 1 were identical to those used in Study 23.
Analytic Approach
To make the results more interpretable, we used a T-score metric to index effect sizes
across each narcissism measure (see Soto & John, 2012 for a similar approach). T scores are
standard units with a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10. Following Cohen’s (1988)
recommendations, we interpreted age differences as small (T ~ 2), medium (T ~ 5), and large
effects (T ~ 8). T scores were calculated within each sample by adding 50 to the product between
10 and the z-standardized narcissism score. Worth noting, recent discussions on how to interpret
effect sizes suggest that Cohen’s (1988) interpretation of effect sizes may be too stringent,
considering the size and distribution of effects in the literature and how they translate to real-
3
We note that the NARQ-S has been administered to 20 German-speaking and 7 English-speaking samples. The
scale was originally developed in German and translated into English with the traditional translation-back-
translation-confirmation process. This process was also used to generate English, Dutch, Danish, Italian, and
Chinese versions of the NARQ by both the original authors and independent author teams (see Back et al., 2013;
Vecchione et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2017). Further, comparable measurement properties are found for different
translations of the NARQ, including the German and English versions (i.e., measurement invariance; Wetzel et al.,
2021). Finally, analyses with the data used in the present study also found comparable measurement properties
across translations (see Table S1; Leckelt et al., 2019).
world outcomes (Funder & Ozer, 2019). Thus, the effect size standards may inadvertently
characterize robust effects as small. Throughout the paper, we use a careful eye in
contextualizing the size and significance of our effects in terms of their relative size to one
another rather than making strong and definitive statements about their size according to others’
recommendations.
To examine age differences in narcissism, hierarchical regression analyses were
conducted in which each narcissism scale (and its facets where appropriate) were predicted from
the linear and quadratic (age2) effects of age. Age was centered prior to the computation of the
quadratic terms. The effects of age and their interactions with gender were entered into separate
steps (Step 1: age, gender, age × gender; Step 2: age2, age2 × gender). The most complex model
that explained a significant amount of variance was retained and interpreted.
Study 2 was not preregistered. Due to the sensitivity of some of the data
collections/participant samples and data use access agreements restricting their public
dissemination (e.g., clinical samples, proprietary samples, NIH's NESARC-III study), we were
unable to share all data of Study 2. However, all sharable data can be found on the Open Science
Framework (OSF): https://osf.io/gp6a4/. However, this means that the results based on this
shared subset might will not fully match the overall results in the manuscript (e.g., Sample 40’s
data could not be shared publicly).
Results
A summary of the age, gender, age x gender, age2, and age2 x gender effects is
summarized in Table 6 and the figures. Detailed estimates and full models are provided in the
supplementary tables. Age (and age x gender) plots by measure are provided in the
supplementary materials.
NPI
For overall NPI-Total, the linear effect of age was the best fitting model (see the first
panel of Supplemental Table 1. NPI-Total narcissism was highest among younger adults and
lowest among older adults. Men reported higher levels of NPI-Total narcissism compared to
women (see Supplemental Figure 1a).
For the Leadership/Authority subscale of the NPI, the linear effect of age was the best
fitting model (see the second panel of Supplemental Table 1). Leadership/Authority was highest
among younger adults and lowest among older adults. Men reported higher levels of
Leadership/Authority compared to women (see Supplemental Figure 1b).
For the Entitlement/Exploitativeness subscale of the NPI, the quadratic effect of age was
the best fitting model (see the third panel of Supplemental Table 1. Entitlement/Exploitativeness
was higher among younger adults compared to middle-aged and older adults (among whom there
were very few age differences; see Supplemental Figure 1c). Men reported higher
Entitlement/Exploitativeness compared to women.
For the Grandiose Exhibitionism subscale of the NPI, the quadratic effect of age was the
best fitting model (see the bottom panel of Supplemental Table 1). Grandiose Exhibitionism was
higher among younger adults compared to middle-aged and older adults (among whom there
were very few age differences; see Supplemental Figure 1d). Men reported higher Grandiose
Exhibitionism compared to women.
Hypersensitive Narcissism
For Hypersensitive narcissism, the quadratic effect of age was the best fitting model (see
Supplemental Table 2). Age differences were most dramatic earlier in life and relatively flat
among middle-aged and older adults (see Supplemental Figure 2a). Men reported higher
hypersensitive narcissism compared to women. The effects of age and age2 were both moderated
by gender. Decomposing this effect revealed that the quadratic effect of age was more dramatic
among men (β = -.04, p < .001) than women (β = .01, p = .73). However, this effect was
relatively small, and the regression lines were nearly parallel (see Supplemental Figure 2b).
DD Narcissism
For Dirty Dozen narcissism, the quadratic effect of age was the best fitting model See
among middle-aged and older adults. Men reported higher DD narcissism compared to women
(see Supplemental Figure 3a). The effects of age and age2 were both moderated by gender.
Decomposing this effect revealed that the quadratic effect of age was more dramatic among men
(β = -.04, p < .001) than women (β = .01, p = .50). However, this effect was relatively small, and
the regression lines were nearly parallel (see Supplemental Figure 3b).
PES
For the PES, the quadratic effect of age was the best fitting model (see Supplemental
Table 4). Age differences were most dramatic among middle-aged and older adults and relatively
flat among young adults. Men reported higher psychological entitlement compared to women
(see Supplemental Figure 4). The linear effect of age was moderated by gender. Decomposing
this effect revealed that the effect of age was stronger among men (β = -.18, p < .001) than
women (β = -.14, p < .001).
DSM-IV NPD
For the DSM-IV NPD measure, the quadratic effect of age was the best fitting model (see
Supplemental Table 5). Age differences were most dramatic among younger adults and relatively
flat among middle-aged and older adults (see Supplemental Figure 5a). Men reported higher
DSM-IV NPD compared to women. The effects of age and age2 were both moderated by gender.
Decomposing this effect revealed that the quadratic effect of age was more dramatic among men
(β = .10, p < .001) than women (β = .06, p < .001). Age differences were largely similar between
men and women. However, older men reported higher scores of DSM-IV NPD compared to
middle-aged men whereas middle-aged and older women reported comparable levels of DSM-IV
NPD.
NARQ-S
For overall NARQ-Total, age differences were best characterized by the linear effect of
age (i.e., the quadratic effect of age was not significant; see the first panel of Supplemental Table
6). NARQ-Total was highest among younger adults and lowest among older adults (see
Supplemental Figure 6a). Men reported higher levels of NARQ-Total compared to women. The
quadratic model was the best fit, indicating that gender moderated the effect of age2. The
quadratic effect of age was significant for women (β = .05, p = .001) and not significant for men
(β = -.003, p = .87). Women had more dramatic age differences among younger adults and few
age differences after middle-aged and older adults (see Supplemental Figure 6b).
For NARQ-Admiration, the linear effect of age was the best fitting model (see the middle
panel of Supplemental Table 6). NARQ-admiration was highest among younger adults and
lowest among older adults (see Supplemental Figure 6c). Men reported higher levels of
narcissistic admiration compared to women. The effects of age and age2 were both moderated by
gender. The linear effect of age was slightly stronger for women (β = -.12, p < .001) compared to
men (β = -.08, p < .001). However, decomposing the age2 × gender interaction revealed that the
effect was not significant for men (β = -.03, p = .17) or women (β = .02, p = .16). In other words,
despite the age2 estimate being different between men and women, it was not significantly
different from zero.
For NARQ-Rivalry, the quadratic effect of age was the best fitting model (see the bottom
panel of Supplemental Table 6). Narcissistic rivalry was highest among younger adults compared
to middle-aged and older adults (among whom age differences were relatively flat; see
Supplemental Figure 6d). Men reported higher levels of narcissistic rivalry compared to women.
SINS
For SINS narcissism, the quadratic effect of age was the best fitting model (see
among middle-aged and older adults (see Supplemental Figure 7a). Men reported higher SINS
narcissism compared to women. The quadratic effect of age was moderated by gender.
Decomposing this effect revealed that the quadratic effect of age was more dramatic among
women (β = .08, p < .001) than men (β = .06, p < .001). However, this effect was relatively
small, and the regression lines were nearly parallel (see Supplemental Figure 7b).
B-PNI
For B-PNI Grandiosity, the linear effect of age was the best fitting model (see the first
panel of Supplemental Table 8). B-PNI Grandiosity was highest among younger adults and
lowest among older adults (see Supplemental Figure 8a). Men reported higher levels of
Grandiosity compared to women.
For B-PNI Vulnerability, the linear effect of age was the best fitting model (see the
bottom panel of Supplemental Table 8). B-PNI Vulnerability was highest among younger adults
and lowest among older adults (see Supplemental Table 8b). Although there was not a significant
main effect of gender, there was a significant age × gender interaction. Decomposing this
interaction revealed that the linear effect of age was stronger among men (β = -.18, p < .001)
compared to women (β = -.11, p < .001).4,5
Summary of Results
A summary of the aforementioned effects across the different instruments are shown in
Table 5. In addition, forest plots summarizing all the effects can be found in Figures 1 (for age
and age2), 2 (for gender), and 3 (for age × gender and age2 × gender). To examine the robustness
of age-related differences across inventories and data sets, we ran a series of meta-analyses.
There was significant heterogeneity in each case, and the results of these analyses are
summarized here.
For age, the random effects meta-analytic effect size across all inventories, facets, and
data sets was r = -.104, 95% CI [-.136, -.072] (Q(20) = 2460.91, p < .001; I2 = 99.19%, 95% CI
[99.06%, 99.30%]). These results suggest a relatively robust, albeit modest, negative association
between age and narcissism across inventories (see Figure 1a) although there was considerable
heterogeneity (variation) in the size of the age effects across measures.
4
B-PNI Grandiosity and Vulnerability are higher-order factors that collectively contain 7 sub-facets (see Measures
in Study 1). For parsimony, we presented the higher-order factors here. However, Supplementary Table 9 reports
age differences in these sub-facets. In summary, the linear effect best characterized age differences in
exploitativeness (β = -.12, p < .001), self-sacrificing self-enhancement (β = -.12, p < .001), grandiose fantasy (β = -
.19, p < .001), contingent self-esteem (β = -.14, p < .001), hiding the self (β = -.14, p < .001), devaluing (β = -.11, p
< .001), and entitlement rage (β = -.08, p < .001). There were no significant quadratic age effects (ps > .15) Men
reported higher B-PNI narcissism than women on every sub-facet (βs > |.03|, ps < .03) with the exceptions of
contingent self-esteem (p = .67) and hiding the self (p = .94). We also included these estimates in the meta-analyses
found at the end of the results.
5
Applying the same long-string analysis of careless/insufficient effort responding, we found that men often reported
longer strings for the NARQ-S (r = -.059, p < .001), the HSNS (r = -.044, p < .001), the DDN (r = -.044, p < .001),
and the B-PNI (r = -.072, p < .001). Older adults reported longer strings for the NPI (r = .067, p < .001) and the
HSNS (r = .034, p < .001), consistent with Study 1. Younger adults reported longer strings for the NARQ-S (r = -
.363, p < .001) and the B-PNI (r = -.359, p < .001). Age and gender were largely unrelated to IER for the other
scales (ps > .487). In controlling for these long-string tendencies, three noteworthy differences in the results
emerged: first, for B-PNI Grandiosity, the age2 term went from non-significant (β = -.004, p = .849) to significant (β
= .055, p = .006), suggesting that the age differences in B-PNI Grandiosity were most dramatic among young adults
and flatter in older adulthood (this pattern can be seen in Figure 8a). Second, for B-PNI Vulnerability, a previously
non-significant gender difference (β = -.032, p = .083) became significant (β = -.047, p = .011) such that men
reported higher vulnerability compared to women. Third, for HSNS, the age2 term went from non-significant (β = -
.012, p = .136) to significant (β = -.016, p = .047), suggesting that the age differences in HSNS Narcissism were
most dramatic among young adults and flatter in older adulthood (this pattern can be seen in Figure 2a).
For age2, the random effects meta-analytic effect size across all inventories, facets, and
data sets was r = .005, 95% CI [-.013, .023] (Q(20) = 792.40, p < .001; I2 = 97.48%, 95% CI
[96.87%, 97.96%]). These results suggest a very small curvilinear effect between age and
narcissism which, in many cases, was near-zero or not significant (see Figure 1b).
For gender, the random effects meta-analytic effect size across all inventories, facets, and
data sets was r = -.079, 95% CI [-.098, -.060] (Q(20) = 824.34, p < .001; I2 = 97.57%, 95% CI
[97.00%, 98.04%]). Men were higher in narcissism across nearly every inventory and facet, with
some exceptions (e.g., some B-PNI subscales; see Figure 2).
For the age × gender interactions, the effect sizes were very small for both the age ×
gender (random effects: r = -.013, 95% CI [-.021, -.006]; Q(20) = 119.58, p < .001; I2 = 83.27%,
95% CI [75.54%, 88.56%], see Figure 3a) and age2 × gender interaction terms (random effects: r
= .005, 95% CI [-.002, .011]; Q(20) = 89.71, p < .001; I2 = 77.71%, 95% CI [66.36%, 85.23%],
see Figure 3b). Altogether, although gender occasionally moderated age differences in
narcissism, it did so in inconsistent ways and, even when consistent, the effects were relatively
small and often non-significant (see Figure 3).
In sum, the age differences in narcissism across inventories supports the idea of a
maturational effect that is often seen in studies of other psychological characteristics (e.g., the
Big Five personality traits). Following the recommendation from a helpful reviewer, we were
able to anchor some of our findings more formally to how well they might be represented by Big
Five personality traits. Specifically, Du et al., (2019) tried to explain the degree to which
variation in narcissism—aggression associations might be partially explained by how much each
measure “taps into” other personality traits like extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism.
The same can be done with associations between age and gender and narcissism (e.g., is
variability in age and gender differences in some narcissism scales attributable to the fact that the
measures might be heavily weighted with elements of extraversion, agreeableness, and
neuroticism?). Although there was not perfect overlap in our measures and those used in Du et
al. (2021), some comparisons could be made. Specifically, narcissism measures that more
overlapping content with extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism showed more dramatic
(negative) associations with age (the associations between the age coefficients and the weights
provided by Du et al., 2021 ranged from |.20| to |.40|). For example, the well-documented
lifespan differences in neuroticism (e.g., that older adults are lower in neuroticism) can be seen
in measures that are more closely weighted with neuroticism (Du et al., 2021). Likewise, gender
differences in narcissism inventories tapping into elements of extraversion, agreeableness, and
neuroticism also reproduce gender differences seen previously (i.e., measures that more closely
tapped into these three traits reported larger gender differences (e.g., ranging from |.21| to |.43|).
We further contextualize our age and gender differences in narcissism in the Discussion below.
Discussion
There is a long prevailing perception that younger people are more narcissistic than older
people and that men are more narcissistic than women. However, reviewing the history of
narcissism research illustrates that the definitions, conceptualizations, and measurements of
narcissism vary considerably. Whether narcissism significantly differed across age and gender
when measured across different instruments has not yet been tested in a comprehensive manner.
The present study aimed to close this gap. Following the recommendation by Foster and
colleagues (2018) we examined cross-sectional age and gender differences and their interactions
using a battery of eight narcissism instruments and a sample of over 250,000 participants.
In Study 1, and in line with the different conceptualizations of narcissism, we found that
the subscales included in the eight measures (i.e., NPI, HSNS, DDN, PES, DSM-IV NPD,
NARQ-S, SINS, B-PNI) show only modest overlap. In addition, the large variability in the
correlation sizes across measures suggest that the instruments do not uniformly measure the
same construct. Complementing with the findings of the factor analysis, Study 1 indicates that
narcissism ≠ narcissism and the different ways of measuring characteristics ostensibly labeled
“narcissism” can probably be organized in a better descriptive way. Rather, some measures can
be unequivocally classified as the construct of narcissistic neuroticism, agentic extraversion, or
self-centered antagonism. This is in line with the current conceptualization of narcissism from a
trifurcated perspective (e.g., Krizan & Herlache, 2018; Miller et al., 2017, 2021). However, few
measures simultaneously tap into two of these constructs (e.g., DSM-IV NPD, HSNS) suggesting
that there is some ambiguity about what exactly these scales are measuring and how they fit into
current understandings of narcissism.
In Study 2, we tested linear and quadratic age effects, gender effects, and age x gender
interactions across the same eight narcissism measures. Our results generally suggest that the
older participants were, the less narcissistic they tended to be. Further, men were more likely to
report higher narcissism compared to women. Even though the age and gender differences
emerged consistently across the different instruments, their ability to explain variance in
narcissism was weak. While age explained 1% in the variance of narcissism, gender explained
.6%. The quadratic age effects and age x gender interactions were very small and not very
consistent across measures/samples. These results imply that, within the scope of these eight
measures, age differences in narcissism across adulthood are comparable in their direction,
irrespective of the instrument used, the instrument’s subscales, and consequently, whether
agentic, antagonistic, or neurotic aspects of narcissism were measured. This evidence raises
confidence in how narcissism is associated with age across its different definitions and
conceptualizations, and it expands the knowledge of how narcissism is distributed across the
adult lifespan. Although it could be the case that the overall negative effect of age is driven by a
construct other than narcissism, such as general personality pathology.
The negative associations between age and narcissism found in the present study is in line
theories that suggest narcissism declines across adulthood and with previous cross-sectional and
longitudinal evidence examining one of the focal eight measures separately (e.g., Barlett &
Barlett, 2015; Carter & Douglass, 2018; Foster et al., 2003; Grosz et al., 2019; Hill & Roberts,
2012; Roberts et al., 2010; Wetzel et al., 2020; Wilson & Sibley, 2011).
Nevertheless, we found considerable differences in the size of the age differences across
measures. Based on the correlations between instruments and the factor analysis of Study 1, we
cannot pinpoint the size differences in the age effects to specific narcissism constructs. In other
words, it seems that the effect size differences did not emerge because scales that measure a
similar narcissism construct (e.g., agentic extraversion) also show consistently stronger age
effects than other scales that measure another narcissism construct (e.g., narcissistic
neuroticism). It is possible that the variation in age effects could be due to other study
differences, such as sampling. Thus, we conclude that age effects emerged in the same direction
across measures but nevertheless varied substantially. This variation needs to be addressed in
future research that can link these measures to other demographic and personality variables.
Ultimately, the exact reasons why older adults report lower narcissism could be
determined by several mechanisms (e.g., maturational processes, social investment,
cohort/changes in conventionality/traditionalism, and social desirability), which is underlined by
the differential patterns across the inventories, their varying degree of overlap, and the
heterogeneity in their factor loadings. In addition, given that the obtained age differences in
narcissism mirror those found for the Big Five personality traits—such as higher agreeableness
and lower extraversion and neuroticism in older adulthood (e.g., Roberts et al., 2006)—it could
also be possible that these age-related differences share similar developmental determinants. This
is underlined by recent findings of strong correlational overlaps between extraversion,
neuroticism, and agreeableness and specific narcissism measures also used in the present study
(Du et al., 2021). Thus, it would be interesting for future studies to examine if the same factors
that drive agreeableness to be higher with age, are also the same factors that drive the
antagonistic part of narcissism to be lower with age.
We also found differences across measures in terms of the quadratic association and if it
explained significantly more variance compared to the linear age association. The effect sizes of
the quadratic age effects were very small, explaining less than .003% of variance. However,
these results generally suggest that young adults are slightly more narcissistic compared to
middle-aged adults which share comparable narcissism levels with older adults. Based on the
factor analysis, we find that some of these scales tap into narcissism aspects (i.e., agentic
extraversion and self-centered antagonism) that might be especially sensitive to the theorized
mechanisms occurring in young adulthood (i.e., social role demands) and less sensitive to
developmental changes in midlife and later adulthood (i.e., socioemotional selectivity).
Gender differences were in line with previous meta-analytic results in that men generally
reported higher narcissism levels than women (Grijalva et al., 2015). Combined with the results
of the factor analysis of Study 1, we found that gender differences were strongest in narcissism
scales related to agentic extraversion and self-centered antagonism factors, but not the
narcissistic neuroticism factor. Therefore, the gender differences do not seem to be driven by
gender differences in emotional instability but rather by differences in agentic and antagonistic
features of narcissism. In terms of the Big Five traits, it could be that these gender differences
emerged based on differences in extraversion (i.e., facet of social dominance) and agreeableness.
It needs to be mentioned, however, that the effect was small and explained less than 1% in the
variation of narcissism.
The present study also revealed that gender occasionally moderated age effects in
narcissism, with very small and inconsistent effects across instruments. We see two potential
reasons for the inconsistent results across studies. First, differences in the age x gender
interactions could originate from sampling variability. These samples could differ in their
educational and economic backgrounds as well as political and religious views, which could at
least partially account for the heterogeneity in the effects. Second, the heterogeneity could also
be due to characteristics of the specific instruments, such as the wording of the items. This
possibility is, however, less likely, given that there is consistency in the age differences and in
the gender differences across instruments. The small magnitude of these interactions paired with
currently unknown sources of heterogeneity might jointly explain why gender did not
consistently moderate age differences in narcissism.
Based on these inconsistent and small age x gender interaction findings and previous
consistent gender differences across ages (Grijalva et al., 2015), we conclude that gender
differences appear to be relatively comparable across the adult lifespan, and gender effects are
most pronounced in terms of the agentic and antagonistic features of narcissism. Gender
differences could be relatively uniform across life through the continual status and socialization
experiences experienced by men and women (Philipson, 1985; Stewart & Healy, 1989; Tschanz
et al., 1998; Twenge, 2009). These status and socialization experiences—irrespective of whether
people are in the reproductive or working stages of their life—potentially shape their narcissism
levels across life.
Implications
Negative outcomes of high levels of narcissism include lower commitment in romantic
relationships (Campbell & Foster, 2002) and higher likelihood of divorce (Wetzel et al., 2020),
more psychological distress (Grubbs & Exline, 2016), counterproductive work behavior
(Grijalva & Newman, 2015), compulsive buying (Rose, 2007), and addiction (Bilevicius et al.,
2019). Thus, younger and male adults high in narcissism might have a higher risk to experience
these outcomes. Narcissism, however, does not only entail negative outcomes. People with
higher narcissism are more popular in the initial stages of acquaintance (Back et al., 2010), they
experience less daily sadness, anxiety, loneliness, and depression (Sedikides et al., 2004), are
more persuasive (Goncalo et al., 2010), and increase their performance after negative feedback
(Nevicka et al., 2016). Hence, individuals in young adulthood and who are male are more likely
to report higher levels of narcissism, and higher levels of narcissism might partly explain
variation in an array of outcomes, both positive and negative. Nevertheless, it needs to be noted
that these associations are generally small, implying that the negative and positive potential
outcomes of narcissism might not be experienced frequently by people higher in narcissism; nor
might younger and male participants be very likely to be narcissistic. However, having extreme
values on narcissism or experiencing a narcissistic personality disorder are rather rare and thus
the small associations for age and gender are not surprising.
The next step in theorizing about narcissism would be to develop theoretical models that
explain why age differences generalize across different facets of narcissism. Are the mechanisms
that drive the age differences the same for agentic, antagonistic, and neurotic narcissism? In
other words, does grandiose narcissism decline across life for one set of reasons but neurotic
narcissism declines across life for another set of reasons? Are different mechanisms responsible
for the differences across young, middle, and late adults? The same applies for the findings
regarding gender differences. What are the reasons behind gender differences, and are they
similar or different across narcissism scales?
Theoretical models that develop hypotheses about the shared and diverging underlying
mechanisms of age and gender differences in narcissism facets can greatly inform future studies
that aim to empirically test these mechanisms. For instance, regarding age differences in
narcissism, testing developmental changes due to transitioning into adult social roles, such as
being an employee, romantic partner, or parent, potentially lowers narcissism levels. Long-term
longitudinal designs that track narcissism across many years could examine whether social roles
are one of the reasons young adults mature and become less narcissistic over time. Regarding
gender differences, cross-cultural and generational studies could provide some indication of how
differing gender views might lead to varying gender differences across countries and across time.
Given the heterogeneity in the empirical overlap between measures, it is crucial in the
upcoming years to define the construct of narcissism more precisely, to shed measurements that
depict personality constructs other than narcissism, and thus to overcome the jingle fallacy that
continues to constitute an important issue in the narcissism field (e.g., Hendin & Cheek, 1997;
Miller et al., 2017). Particularly Study 1 provides important empirical impetus to circumscribe
the construct of narcissism more closely. Additionally, Study 2 and its consistent age and gender
differences imply that despite the large range in the overlap across measures, these different
instruments assess some shared overarching attribute (e.g., general personality pathology,
externalizing psychopathology, disagreeableness) that potentially drives these uniform effects.

Future research is needed to investigate how narcissism measures have similar age and gender
differences while simultaneously being sometimes conceptually very distinct from each other.
Limitations and Outlook for Future Research
Despite the strengths of the present study, there are limitations that are worth noting.
First, due to the little variability in assessment dates, we cannot distinguish whether the reported
age differences stem from developmental changes across the lifespan or from differences across
birth cohorts and generations partly bound to societal events (Roberts et al., 2010; Stronge et al.,
2018; Twenge et al., 2008, 2021; Wetzel et al., 2020). Likewise, gender moderations of age
could be due not only to changes across the lifespan experienced by men and women but also to
sociocultural shifts across cohorts that might impact how gender differences manifest themselves
across generations. Future research could use longitudinal data across multiple instruments to
tease apart age from cohort effects. Such a research undertaking would be useful in furthering the
understanding of how age differences are generalizable across different narcissism measures and
facets and in illuminating whether generational differences in narcissism exist.
Second, the present study did not examine potential mechanistic factors that might
contribute to the obtained age and gender differences. Future research could focus on the
theorized mechanisms of narcissism changes across the lifespan or across cohorts. What factors
contribute to the decrease of narcissism and do these factors vary across the lifespan, across
generations, and across gender? Such factors could include whether young adults take on
normative social roles (e.g., Roberts et al., 2008), whether individuals in midlife and older
adulthood foster social relationships more (e.g., Carstensen, 1995), what the degree of
experienced failures is (Foster et al., 2003), and how personality disorders in individuals decline
across the life span (e.g., Samuels et al., 2002). In addition to these theorized factors, other
transitions might contribute to age and gender differences in narcissism. For example,
experiencing major life events, such as victimization, bereavement, or relationship dissolution
has been shown to predict changes in narcissism over time (Grosz et al., 2019; Orth & Luciano,
2015; Wetzel et al., 2020). Some of these life events could be more likely in a specific life stage
or more likely for men or women, which could explain potential differences.
Third, the samples of the present study were diverse, including convenience samples,
internet and MTurk samples, clinical, community, and representative samples. However, for
many of these samples, self-selection might have biased the results. Furthermore, the gender
distributions and the age ranges were also diverse, which might have contributed to the diverging
results regarding the gender moderation of age effects. In addition, our study did not include
samples covering childhood and adolescence (for a similar approach, see Soto et al., 2011).
Furthermore, sample sizes ranged considerably across instruments (from n = 5,802 for the B-PNI
to n = 139,748 for the SINS). Given that the SINS is more strongly linked to social desirability
(e.g., Konrath et al., 2014), a more balanced sample size distribution would have been
preferrable. To minimize noise in the data across different samples, future studies with a battery
of different instruments could make use of matching procedures (or random assignment) to
ensure that differences in the effects are not due to idiosyncratic sample characteristics. A further
possibility is to recruit a large sample to participate in a variety of different narcissism measures
and to use Principal Component Analysis to group measures together to examine age and gender
differences on the trifurcated level of narcissism (e.g., Krizan & Herlache, 2018; Miller et al.,
2017, 2021).
Relatedly, and regarding Constraints on Generalizability, the samples used were Western
and highly educated, originating from industrialized, rich, and democratic countries. Thus, the
present findings may not necessarily generalize to other cultures or countries. The potential
reasons behind the age and gender differences in narcissism (e.g., social investment or gender
socialization) could substantially differ in other cultural contexts, leading to different results.
And fourth, our study was limited to eight narcissism instruments—although certainly
more exist (e.g., the Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory; Glover et al., 2012)—and used available
samples that co-authors have contributed. This also entailed that some measures were assessed in
the same convenience sample, which limited our ability to test heterogeneity in the meta-analytic
effects. This is because we did not have enough short- and long-term measures and different sets
of samples to conduct an in-depth investigation of the reasons behind potential variations in the
effects. Further, all measures that we examined depict narcissism and its facets as relatively
stable personality traits. However, research on narcissism states is growing (e.g., Edershile &
Wright, 2020; Giacomin & Jordan, 2016). States, compared to traits, could provide a pathway for
potential interventions to decrease narcissism (e.g., Giacomin & Jordan, 2014; Wrzus & Roberts,
2017). It remains an open research question how age and gender differences arise across
different state measures and how these differences impact the development of narcissism as a
stable individual difference.
Lastly, an important consideration in interpreting the present findings is that the
instruments used to measure narcissism did not show a substantial overlap (mean correlation
across different instruments’ (sub)scales: r = .32, median r = .34). As alluded to in the
introduction, the history and conceptualization of narcissism research has a diverse background
which poses the question of whether narcissism research suffers from the ‘jingle’ fallacy
(Thorndike, 1913) in that it claims to measure narcissism while measuring neighboring
constructs. It was not the goal of the present study to resolve this issue. The present study cannot
address which components of the age and gender differences measured with the narcissism
instruments are unique to the construct of narcissism or ubiquitous for several personality
constructs (e.g., neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness) and internalizing or externalizing
disorders (with which neuroticism and antagonism are related; Lynam & Miller, 2019). Because
we did not assess other personality traits alongside narcissism, our study cannot inform whether
these age- or gender-related findings are specific to narcissism or generalizable to other
personality constructs. Future studies in the field of narcissism must devote efforts to solve the
issues of conceptualization and measurement.
Conclusion
The present study reflects a concerted effort to examine age and gender differences
across eight commonly used narcissism measures in over 250,000 participants. Across
instruments, we found that narcissism was generally lower in older and in female participants.
Future research can investigate the reasons for age and gender differences in narcissism and
identify sources of heterogeneity across particular estimates (e.g., curvilinear effects, gender
moderation) or samples.
References
Ackerman, R. A., Donnellan, M. B., & Wright, A. G. C. (2019). Current conceptualizations of
narcissism. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 32, 32–37.
https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0000000000000463
Ackerman, R. A., Witt, E. A., Donnellan, M. B., Trzesniewski, K. H., Robins, R. W., & Kashy,
D. A. (2011). What does the Narcissistic Personality Inventory really measure?
Assessment, 18, 67–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191110382845
Akhtar, S., & Anderson Thomson, J. (1982). Overview: Narcissistic personality disorder.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 139, 12–20.
Anderson, N. H. (1968). Likableness ratings of 555 personality-trait words. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 272-279. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025907
Aslinger, E. N., Manuck, S. B., Pilkonis, P. A., Simms, L. J., & Wright, A. G. C. (2018).
Narcissist or narcissistic? Evaluation of the latent structure of narcissistic personality
disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 127, 496–502.
https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000363
Back, M. D. (2018). The Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Concept. In A. D. Hermann, A.
Brunell, & J. Foster (Eds.), The Handbook of trait narcissism: Key advances, research
methods, and controversies (pp. 57-67). New York, NY: Springer.
Back, M. D., Küfner, A. C. P., Dufner, M., Gerlach, T. M., Rauthmann, J. F., & Denissen, J. J.
A. (2013). Narcissistic admiration and rivalry: Disentangling the bright and dark sides of
narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 1013–1037.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034431
Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2010). Why are narcissists so charming at first
sight? Decoding the narcissism–popularity link at zero acquaintance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 132–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016338
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence. Beacon Press.
Barlett, C. P., & Barlett, N. D. (2015). The young and the restless: Examining the relationships
between age, emerging adulthood variables, and the Dark Triad. Personality and
Individual Differences, 86, 20–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.05.024
Bianchi, E. C. (2014). Entering adulthood in a recession tempers later narcissism. Psychological
Science, 25, 1429–1437. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614532818
Bilevicius, E., Neufeld, D. C., Single, A., Foot, M., Ellery, M., Keough, M. T., & Johnson, E. A.
(2019). Vulnerable narcissism and addiction: The mediating role of shame. Addictive
Behaviors, 92, 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.12.035
Bleidorn, W., Klimstra, T. A., Denissen, J. J. A., Rentfrow, P. J., Potter, J., & Gosling, S. D.
(2013). Personality maturation around the world: A cross-cultural examination of social-
investment theory. Psychological Science, 24, 2530–2540.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613498396
Bühler, J. L., Weidmann, R., Nikitin, J., & Grob, A. (2019). A closer look at life goals across
adulthood: Applying a developmental perspective to content, dynamics, and outcomes of
goal importance and goal attainability. European Journal of Personality, 33, 359–384.
https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2194
Cai, H., Kwan, V. S. Y., & Sedikides, C. (2012). A sociocultural approach to narcissism: The
case of modern China. European Journal of Personality, 26, 529–535.
https://doi.org/10.1002/per.852
Cain, N. M., Pincus, A. L., & Ansell, E. B. (2008). Narcissism at the crossroads: Phenotypic
description of pathological narcissism across clinical theory, social/personality
psychology, and psychiatric diagnosis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 638–656.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2007.09.006
Campbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (2004).
Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report
measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83, 29–45.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8301_04
Campbell, W. K., & Foster, C. A. (2002). Narcissism and commitment in romantic relationships:
An investment model analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 484–495.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202287006
Carlson, K. S., & Gjerde, P. F. (2009). Preschool personality antecedents of narcissism in
adolescence and young adulthood: A 20-year longitudinal study. Journal of Research in
Personality, 43, 570–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.03.003
Carstensen, L. L. (1995). Evidence for a life-span theory of socioemotional selectivity. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 151–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
8721.ep11512261
Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously: A theory of
socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist, 54, 165-181.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.3.165
Carter, G. L., & Douglass, M. D. (2018). The aging narcissus: Just a myth? Narcissism
moderates the age-loneliness relationship in older age. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1254.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01254
Carter, R. R., Johnson, S. M., Exline, J. J., Post, S. G., & Pagano, M. E. (2012). Addiction and
“Generation Me”: Narcissistic and prosocial behaviors of adolescents with substance
dependency disorder in comparison to normative adolescents. Alcoholism Treatment
Quarterly, 30, 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/07347324.2012.663286
Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., & Henrich, J. (2010). Pride, personality, and the evolutionary
foundations of human social status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 334–347.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.02.004
Chopik, W. J. (2016). Age differences in conscientiousness facets in the second half of life:
Divergent associations with changes in physical health. Personality and Individual
Differences, 96, 202-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.076
Chopik, W. J., & Grimm, K. J. (2019). Longitudinal changes and historic differences in
narcissism from adolescence to older adulthood. Psychology and Aging, 34, 1109–1123.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000379
Crowe, M. L., Lynam, D. R., Campbell, W. K., & Miller, J. D. (2019). Exploring the structure of
narcissism: Toward an integrated solution. Journal of Personality, 87, 1151-1169.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12464
Curran, P. G. (2016). Methods for the detection of carelessly invalid responses in survey data.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 4-19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.07.006
Deaux, K., & LaFrance, M. (1998). Gender. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.),
The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 788–827). McGraw-Hill.
Du, T. V., Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2021). The relation between narcissism and aggression:
A meta‐analysis. Journal of Personality, Advance online publication.
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior. American
Psychologist, 54, 408–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.6.408
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2011). Social role theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski,
& E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories in social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 458–476).
Sage Publications Ltd.
Edelstein, R. S., Newton, N. J., & Stewart, A. J. (2012). Narcissism in midlife: Longitudinal
changes in and correlates of women’s narcissistic personality traits. Journal of
Personality, 80, 1179–1204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00755.x
Edershile, E. A., & Wright, A. G. C. (2020). Fluctuations in grandiose and vulnerable narcissistic
states: A momentary perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120,
1386–1414. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000370
Foster, J. D., Brantley, J. A., Kern, M. L., Kotze, J.-L., Slager, B. A., & Szabo, K. (2018). The
many measures of grandiose narcissism. In A. D. Hermann, A. B. Brunell, & J. D. Foster
(Eds.), Handbook of trait narcissism: Key advances, research methods, and
controversies. New York, NY: Springer.
Foster, J. D., Campbell, K. W., & Twenge, J. M. (2003). Individual differences in narcissism:
Inflated self-views across the lifespan and around the world. Journal of Research in
Personality, 37, 469–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00026-6
Gabbard, G. O. (1989). Two subtypes of narcissistic personality disorder. Bulletin of the
Menninger Clinic, 53, 527–532.
Giacomin, M., & Jordan, C. H. (2014). Down-regulating narcissistic tendencies: Communal

focus reduces state narcissism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 488–500.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213516635
Giacomin, M., & Jordan, C. H. (2016). The wax and wane of narcissism: Grandiose narcissism
as a process or state. Journal of Personality, 84, 154–164.
Gibb, S. J., Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., & Boden, J. M. (2014). The effects of parenthood
on workforce participation and income for men and women. Journal of Family and
Economic Issues, 35, 14-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-013-9353-4
Glover, N., Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Crego, C., & Widiger, T. A. (2012). The Five-Factor
Narcissism Inventory: A five-factor measure of narcissistic personality traits. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 94, 500–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.670680
Goncalo, J. A., Flynn, F. J., & Kim, S. H. (2010). Are two narcissists better than one? The link
between narcissism, perceived creativity, and creative performance. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1484–1495. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210385109
Grant, B. F., Dawson, D. A., Stinson, F. S., Chou, P. S., Kay, W., & Pickering, R. (2003). The
Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule-IV (AUDADIS-
IV): Reliability of alcohol consumption, tobacco use, family history of depression and
psychiatric diagnostic modules in a general population sample. Drug and Alcohol
Dependence, 71, 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-8716(03)00070-X
Grapsas, S., Brummelman, E., Back, M. D., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2020). The “why” and “how”
of narcissism: A process model of narcissistic status pursuit. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 15, 150–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619873350
Grijalva, E., & Newman, D. A. (2015). Narcissism and counterproductive work behavior
(CWB): Meta-analysis and consideration of collectivist culture, Big Five personality, and
narcissism’s facet structure: narcissism-CWB relationship. Applied Psychology, 64, 93–
126. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12025
Grijalva, E., Newman, D. A., Tay, L., Donnellan, M. B., Harms, P. D., Robins, R. W., & Yan, T.
(2015). Gender differences in narcissism: A meta-analytic review. Psychological
Bulletin, 141, 261–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038231
Grosz, M. P., Göllner, R., Rose, N., Spengler, M., Trautwein, U., Rauthmann, J. F., Wetzel, E.,
& Roberts, B. W. (2019). The development of narcissistic admiration and
machiavellianism in early adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116,
467–482. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000174
Grubbs, J. B., & Exline, J. J. (2016). Trait entitlement: A cognitive-personality source of
vulnerability to psychological distress. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 1204–1226.
https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000063
Hart, C. M., Bush-Evans, R. D., Hepper, E. G., & Hickman, H. M. (2017). The children of
narcissus: Insights into narcissists’ parenting styles. Personality and Individual
Differences, 117, 249–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.06.019
Havighurst, R. J. (1972). Developmental tasks and education. Longman Inc.
Hendin, H. M., & Cheek, J. M. (1997). Assessing hypersensitive narcissism: A reexamination of
Murray’s Narcism Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 588–599.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2204
Hermann, A. D., Brunell, A. B., & Foster, J. D. (Eds.). (2018). Handbook of trait narcissism:
Key advances, research methods, and controversies. New York, NY: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92171-6
Hill, P. L., & Lapsley, D. K. (2011). Adaptive and maladaptive narcissism in adolescent
development. In C. T. Barry, P. K. Kerig, K. K. Stellwagen, & T. D. Barry (Eds.),
Narcissism and Machiavellianism in youth: Implications for the development of adaptive
and maladaptive behavior (pp. 89–105). American Psychological Association.
https://doi.org/10.1037/12352-005
Hill, P. L., & Roberts, B. W. (2012). Narcissism, well-being, and observer-rated personality
across the lifespan. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 216–223.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611415867
Holtzman, N. S., & Donnellan, M. B. (2015). The roots of Narcissus: Old and new models of the
evolution of narcissism. In V. Zeigler-Hill, L. L. M. Welling, & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.),
Evolutionary perspectives on social psychology. Springer International Publishing.
Holtzman, N. S., & Strube, M. J. (2011). The intertwined evolution of narcissism and short-term
mating. In W. K. Campbell & J. D. Miller (Eds.), The handbook of narcissism and
narcissistic personality disorder: Theoretical approaches, empirical findings, and
treatments (pp. 210-220). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118093108.ch19
Holtzman, N. S., Vazire, S., & Mehl, M. R. (2010). Sounds like a narcissist: Behavioral
manifestations of narcissism in everyday life. Journal of Research in Personality, 44,
478–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.06.001
Hosoi, K. (1981). A developmental study of narcissistic tendency. Japanese Psychological
Research, 23, 160–186.
Hutteman, R., Hennecke, M., Orth, U., Reitz, A. K., & Specht, J. (2014). Developmental tasks as
a framework to study personality development in adulthood and old age. European

Journal of Personality, 28, 267–278. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1959
Jackson, J. J., Bogg, T., Walton, K. E., Wood, D., Harms, P. D., Lodi-Smith, J., Edmonds, G.
W., & Roberts, B. W. (2009). Not all conscientiousness scales change alike: A
multimethod, multisample study of age differences in the facets of conscientiousness.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 446-459.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014156
Jonason, P. K., Kaufman, S. B., Webster, G. D., & Geher, G. (2013). What lies beneath the Dark
Triad Dirty Dozen: Varied relations with the Big Five. Individual Differences Research,
11, 81–90.
Jonason, P. K., & Luévano, V. X. (2013). Walking the thin line between efficiency and accuracy:
Validity and structural properties of the Dirty Dozen. Personality and Individual
Differences, 55, 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.02.010
Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The Dirty Dozen: A concise measure of the dark triad.
Psychological Assessment, 22, 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019265
Jorm, A. F. (2000). Does old age reduce the risk of anxiety and depression? A review of
epidemiological studies across the adult life span. Psychological Medicine, 30, 11–22.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291799001452
Josselson, R. (1988). The embedded self: I and thou revisited. In D. K. Lapsley & F. C. Power
(Eds.), Self, ego, and identity. Springer.
Kernberg, O. F. (1975). Borderline conditions and pathological narcissism. Jason Aronson, Inc.
Kessler, R. C., Birnbaum, H., Bromet, E., Hwang, I., Sampson, N., & Shahly, V. (2010). Age
differences in major depression: Results from the National Comorbidity Survey
Replication (NCS-R). Psychological Medicine, 40, 225–237.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291709990213
Klimstra, T. A., Jeronimus, B. F., Sijtsema, J. J., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2020). The unfolding dark
side: Age trends in dark personality features. Journal of Research in Personality, 85,
103915.
Kohut, H. (1966). Forms and Transformations of Narcissism. Journal of the American
Psychoanalytic Association, 14, 243–272.
Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of the self. International Universities Press.
Konrath, S., Meier, B. P., & Bushman, B. J. (2014). Development and validation of the Single
Item Narcissism Scale (SINS). PLoS ONE, 9, e103469.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103469
Krizan, Z. (2018). The Narcissism Spectrum Model: A spectrum perspective on narcissistic
personality. In A. D. Hermann, A. B. Brunell, & J. D. Foster (Eds.), Handbook of trait
narcissism: Key advances, research methods, and controversies. New York, NY:
Springer.
Krizan, Z., & Herlache, A. D. (2018). The Narcissism Spectrum Model: A synthetic view of
narcissistic personality. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22, 3–31.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316685018
Leckelt, M., Wetzel, E., Gerlach, T. M., Ackerman, R. A., Miller, J. D., Chopik, W. J., Penke, L.,
Geukes, K., Küfner, A. C. P., Hutteman, R., Richter, D., Renner, K.-H., Allroggen, M.,
Brecheen, C., Campbell, W. K., Grossmann, I., & Back, M. D. (2018). Validation of the
Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire Short Scale (NARQ-S) in
convenience and representative samples. Psychological Assessment, 30, 86–96.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000433
Little, T. D., & Rhemtulla, M. (2013). Planned missing data designs for developmental
researchers. Child Development Perspectives, 7, 199-204.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12043
Lynam, D. R., & Miller, J. D. (2019). The basic trait of antagonism: An unfortunately
underappreciated construct. Journal of Research in Personality, 81, 118-126.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.05.012
Martin, C. L. (1987). A ratio measure of sex stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52, 489–499.
McCain, J. L., & Campbell, W. K. (2018). Narcissism and social media use: A meta-analytic
review. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 7, 308–327.
https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000137
Miller, J. D., Back, M. D., Lynam, D. R., & Wright, A. G. (2021). Narcissism today: What we
know and what we need to learn. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 30, 519-
525. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214211044109
Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Hyatt, C. S., & Campbell, W. K. (2017). Controversies in
narcissism. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 13, 291–315.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032816-045244
Miller, J. D., & Maples, J. (2011). Trait personality models of narcissistic personality disorder,
grandiose narcissism, and vulnerable narcissism. In K. W. Campbell & J. D. Miller
(Eds.), The handbook of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder: Theoretical
approaches, empirical findings, and treatments (pp. 71–88). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-
regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 177–196.

https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1204_1
Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. Oxford University Press.
National Center for Education Statistics. Percentage distribution of public school teachers by sex,
race/ethnicity, school level, and main teaching assignment: 2017-2018. URL
https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ntps/tables/ntps1718_21011202_t1n.asp. Accessed October
2022
Nevicka, B., Baas, M., & Ten Velden, F. S. (2016). The bright side of threatened narcissism:
Improved performance following ego threat. Journal of Personality, 84, 809-823.
Okrent, A., & Burke, A. The STEM labor force of today: Scientists, engineers, and skilled
technical workers (2021). URL https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20212. Accessed October
2022
Orloff, A. S. (2002). Women’s employment and welfare regimes: Globalization, export
orientation and social policy in Europe and North America. Social Policy and
Development, Program Paper Number 12 (pp. 1 – 49). United Nations Research Institute
for Social Development.
Orth, U., & Luciano, E. C. (2015). Self-esteem, narcissism, and stressful life events: Testing for
selection and socialization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 707–721.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000049
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism,
machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6
Perry, J. D., & Perry, J. C. (1996). Reliability and convergence of three concepts of narcissistic
personality. Psychiatry, 59, 4–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1996.11024747
Philipson, I. (1985). Gender and narcissism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 213–228.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1985.tb00873.x
Pincus, A. L. (2009). Initial construction and validation of the Pathological Narcissism
Inventory. 2009, 21, 365–379.
Pulay, A. J., Goldstein, R. B., & Grant, B. F. (2011). Sociodemographic correlates of DSM-IV
Narcissistic Personality Disorder: Results from the Wave 2 National Epidemiologic
Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC). In W. K. Campbell & J. D.
Miller (Eds.), Handbook of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder: Theoretical
approaches, empirical findings, and treatments. John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Raskin, R. N., & Hall, C. S. (1979). A Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Psychological Reports,
45, 590–590. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1979.45.2.590
Raskin, R. N., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic
Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 890–902.
Revelle, W., Condon, D. M., Wilt, J., French, J. A., Brown, A., & Elleman, L. G. (2016). Web
and phone based data collection using planned missing designs. Sage handbook of online
research methods (2nd ed., p. 578-595). Sage Publications, Inc.
Roberts, B. W., Edmonds, G., & Grijalva, E. (2010). It is Developmental Me, not Generation
Me: Developmental changes are more important than generational changes in
narcissism—commentary on Trzesniewski & Donnellan (2010). Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 5, 97–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691609357019
Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in
personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies.
Psychological Bulletin, 132, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1
Roberts, B. W., & Wood, D. (2006). Personality development in the context of the Neo-
Socioanalytic Model of Personality. In D. Mroczek & T. D. Little (Eds.), Handbook of
personality development (2006-07023-002; pp. 11–39). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers.
Roberts, B. W., Wood, D., & Caspi, A. (2008). The development of personality traits in
adulthood. In Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2008-11667-014; 3rd ed.,
pp. 375–398). Guilford Press.
Roberts, B. W., Wood, D., & Smith, J. L. (2005). Evaluating Five Factor Theory and social
investment perspectives on personality trait development. Journal of Research in
Personality, 39, 166–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2004.08.002
Roche, M. J., Pincus, A. L., Conroy, D. E., Hyde, A. L., & Ram, N. (2013). Pathological
narcissism and interpersonal behavior in daily life. Personality Disorders: Theory,
Research, and Treatment, 4, 315–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030798
Rose, P. (2007). Mediators of the association between narcissism and compulsive buying: The
roles of materialism and impulse control. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 21, 576–
581. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.21.4.576
Ruan, W. J., Goldstein, R. B., Chou, S. P., Smith, S. M., Saha, T. D., Pickering, R. P., Dawson,
D. A., Huang, B., Stinson, F. S., & Grant, B. F. (2008). The Alcohol Use Disorder and
Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule-IV (AUDADIS-IV): Reliability of new
psychiatric diagnostic modules and risk factors in a general population sample. Drug and
Alcohol Dependence, 92, 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.06.001

Samuels, J., Eaton, W. W., Bienvenu, O. J., Brown, C. H., Costa, P. T., & Nestadt, G. (2002).
Prevalence and correlates of personality disorders in a community sample. British
Journal of Psychiatry, 180, 536–542. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.180.6.536
Schaie, K. W. (1965). A general model for the study of developmental problems. Psychological
Bulletin, 64, 92–107.
Schimmack, U. (2012). The ironic effect of significant results on the credibility of multiple-study
articles. Psychological Methods, 17, 551–566. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029487
Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008). Why can’t a man be more like a
woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 168–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.94.1.168
Schoenleber, M., Roche, M. J., Wetzel, E., Pincus, A. L., & Roberts, B. W. (2015). Development
of a brief version of the Pathological Narcissism Inventory. Psychological Assessment,
27, 1520–1526. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000158
Sedikides, C., Rudich, E. A., Gregg, A. P., Kumashiro, M., & Rusbult, C. (2004). Are normal
narcissists psychologically healthy?: Self-esteem matters. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 87, 400–416. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.400
Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2012). Development of Big Five domains and facets in adulthood:
Mean‐level age trends and broadly versus narrowly acting mechanisms. Journal of
Personality, 80, 881–914. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00752.x
Soto, C. J., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2011). Age differences in personality traits
from 10 to 65: Big Five domains and facets in a large cross-sectional sample. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 330–348. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021717

Stewart, A. J., & Healy, J. M. (1989). Linking individual development and social changes.
American Psychologist, 44, 30–42.
Soubelet, A., & Salthouse, T. A. (2011). Influence of social desirability on age differences in
self‐reports of mood and personality. Journal of Personality, 79, 741-762.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00700.x
Stinson, F. S., Dawson, D. A., Goldstein, R. B., Chou, S. P., Huang, B., Smith, S. M., Ruan, W.
J., Pulay, A. J., Saha, T. D., Pickering, R. P., & Grant, B. F. (2008). Prevalence,
correlates, disability, and comorbidity of DSM-IV Narcissistic Personality Disorder:
Results from the wave 2 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related
Conditions. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 69, 1033–1045.
Thorndike, E. L. (1913). An introduction to the theory of mental and social measurements.
Teacher's College, Columbia University.
Tschanz, B. T., Morf, C. C., & Turner, C. W. (1998). Gender differences in the structure of
narcissism: A multi-sample analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Sex Roles,
38, 863–870.
Twenge, J. M. (2009). Status and gender: The paradox of progress in an age of narcissism. Sex
Roles, 61, 338–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9617-5
Twenge, J. M., & Foster, J. D. (2010). Birth cohort increases in narcissistic personality traits
among American college students, 1982–2009. Social Psychological and Personality
Science, 1, 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550609355719
Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Foster, J. D., Campbell, K. W., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Egos
inflating over time: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of the Narcissistic Personality
Inventory. Journal of Personality, 76, 875–902. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

6494.2008.00507.x
Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S. H., Cooper, A. B., Foster, J. D., Campbell, K. W., & McAllister, C.
(2021). Egos deflating with the Great Recession: A cross-temporal meta-analysis and
within-campus analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, 1982–2016. Personality
and Individual Differences, 179, 110947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110947
Van Volkom, M., Stapley, J. C., & Malter, J. (2013). Use and perception of technology: Sex and
generational differences in a community sample. Educational Gerontology, 39, 729–740.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03601277.2012.756322
Vecchione, M., Dentale, F., Graziano, M., Dufner, M., Wetzel, E., Leckelt, M., & Back, M. D.
(2018). An Italian validation of the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire
(NARQ): Further evidence for a two-dimensional model of grandiose narcissism. BPA-
Applied Psychology Bulletin (Bollettino di Psicologia Applicata), 66, 29–37.
Weiss, B., & Miller, J. D. (2018). Distinguishing between grandiose narcissism, vulnerable
narcissism, and narcissistic personality disorder. In A. D. Hermann, A. Brunell, & J.
Foster (Eds.), The Handbook of trait narcissism: Key advances, research methods, and
controversies (pp. 3-13). New York, NY: Springer.
Wetzel, E., Brown, A., Hill, P. L., Chung, J. M., Robins, R. W., & Roberts, B. W. (2017). The
narcissism epidemic is dead; long live the narcissism epidemic. Psychological Science,
28, 1833–1847. https://doi.org/1o0i.1or1g7/170/.01197576/7095767197761274720482
Wetzel, E., Lang, F. J., Back, M. D., Vecchione, M., Rogoza, R., & Roberts, B. W. (2021).
Measurement invariance of three narcissism questionnaires across the United States, the
United Kingdom, and Germany. Assessment, 28, 29-43.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191120907967
Wetzel, E., Robins, R. W., Grijalva, E., & Roberts, B. W. (2020). You’re still so vain: Changes
in narcissism from young adulthood to middle age. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 119, 479–496. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000266
Wilson, M. S., & Sibley, C. G. (2011). 'Narcissism creep?': Evidence for age-related differences
in narcissism in the New Zealand general population. New Zealand Journal of
Psychology, 40. 89–95.
Wink, P. (1991). Two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61,
590–597.
World Health Organization. Nursing and midwifery personnel: Nurses by sex (%). (2022) URL
https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-details/GHO/nurses-by-sex-(-).
Accessed October 2022
Wright, A. G. C., Lukowitsky, M. R., Pincus, A. L., & Conroy, D. E. (2010). The higher order
factor structure and gender invariance of the Pathological Narcissism Inventory.
Assessment, 17, 467–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191110373227
Wrzus, C., & Roberts, B. W. (2017). Processes of personality development in adulthood: The
TESSERA framework. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21, 253–277.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316652279
Wurst, S. N., Gerlach, T. M., Dufner, M., Rauthmann, J. F., Grosz, M. P., Küfner, A. C. P.,
Denissen, J. J. A., & Back, M. D. (2017). Narcissism and romantic relationships: The
differential impact of narcissistic admiration and rivalry. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 112, 280–306. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000113
Zhang, C., & Yu, M. C. (2021). Planned Missingness: How to and How Much?. Organizational
Research Methods, 10944281211016534. https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281211016534

Zhang, Q., Zhang, L., & Li, C. (2017). Attachment, perceived parental trust and grandiose
narcissism: Moderated mediation models. Personality and Individual Differences, 104,
470-475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.013
Table 1
Overview of the Most Commonly Used Narcissism Measures
Scale Abbreviation Author(s) Year Example studies on age differences
Narcissistic Personality Inventory NPI Raskin & Hall 1979 Cross-sectional: Cai et al. (2012), Carter & Douglass (2018),
Foster et al. (2003), Hill & Roberts (2012),
Roberts et al. (2010),
Wilson & Sibley, (2011, Study 2)
Longitudinal: Grosz et al. (2019), Wetzel et al. (2020)
Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale HSNS Hendin & Cheek 1997 Cross-sectional: Barlett & Barlett (2015)
Dirty Dozen (Dirty Dozen Narcissism) DDN Jonason & Webster 2010 Cross-sectional: Klimstra et al., (2020, Study 1)
Longitudinal: Klimstra et al., (2020, Study 2)
Psychological Entitlement Scale PES Campbell et al. 2004 Cross-sectional: Wilson & Sibley (2011, Study 1)
Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated DSM-IV NPD Ruan et al. 2008 Cross-sectional: Pulay et al. (2011), Stinson et al. (2008)
Disabilities Interview Schedule –
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders – Fourth Edition
Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry NARQ Back et al. 2013
Questionnaire
Single Item Narcissism Scale SINS Konrath et al. 2014
Brief version of the Pathological B-PNI Schoenleber et al. 2015
Narcissism Inventory
Table 2
Correlations and Descriptive Statistics for the Narcissism Scales of Study 1
Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1.) NPI-Total .86 4838 4837 4835 2722 2724 3650 3646 4811 4811 4810 4050
2.) NPI LA .845 .76 4837 4835 2722 2724 3650 3646 4811 4811 4810 4050
3.) NPI GE .757 .470 .74 4834 2722 2724 3650 3646 4810 4810 4809 4050
4.) NPI EE .525 .330 .265 .51 2721 2724 3649 3645 4809 4809 4808 4050
b
5.) HSNS .107 .000 .097 .298 .73 3129 3130 3128 2722 2722 2722 3120
6.) DD Narcissism .471 .319 .455 .331 .382 .73 3131 3128 2723 2723 2723 3121
7.) PES .389 .271 .304 .381 .329 .443 .64 4053 3647 3647 3646 4045
8.) DSM-IV NPD .504 .352 .386 .479 .421 .478 .467 .78 3648 3648 3647 4044
9.) NARQ .559 .395 .446 .456 .420 .559 .513 .537 .75 4836 4835 4052
10.) NARQ Admiration .458 .455 .470 .297 .257 .507 .460 .444 .839 .72 4835 4052
11.) NARQ Rivalry .357 .197 .269 .465 .442 .414 .386 .443 .823 .382 .72 4051
12.) SINS .352 .226 .341 .310 .292 .365 .301 .411 .392 .276 .368 N/A
b
13.) PNI CSE .008 -.102 .065 .195 .524 .433 .213 .267 .313 .151 .374 .189
14.) PNI EXP .502 .397 .271 .351 .202 .371 .270 .334 .402 .338 .326 .284
15.) PNI SSSE .171 .125 .145 .075 .254 .388 .179 .245 .319 .358 .163 .103
a
16.) PNI HS -.038 -.061 -.105 .117 .372 .150 .115 .178 .151 .078 .173 .109
17.) PNI GF .257 .187 .200 .203 .383 .464 .287 .372 .403 .377 .285 .229
18.) PNI DEV .154 .051 .105 .316 .507 .376 .342 .401 .410 .272 .410 .248
19.) PNI ER .381 .232 .307 .439 .531 .558 .487 .526 .593 .467 .515 .349
20.) PNI Grandiosity .420 .321 .278 .286 .376 .545 .332 .428 .504 .478 .351 .281
b
21.) PNI Vulnerability .151 .030 .112 .329 .615 .480 .358 .426 .457 .299 .461 .279
M 1.378 1.440 1.365 1.229 2.839 2.787 3.119 0.375 2.764 3.273 2.254 2.570
SD 0.178 0.262 0.254 0.268 0.619 0.817 1.255 0.208 0.899 1.107 1.054 1.547
Note. NPI: Narcissistic Personality Inventory; LA: Leadership/Authority; GE: Grandiose Exhibitionism; EE: Entitlement/Exploitiveness; DD:
Dirty Dozen; PES: Psychological Entitlement Scale; DSM-IV NPD: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Narcissistic
Personality Disorder; NARQ: Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire; SINS: Single-item Narcissism Scale; PNI: Pathological
Narcissism Inventory; CSE: Contingent Self-esteem; EXP: Exploitativeness; SSSE: Self-sacrificing Self-enhancement; HS: Hiding the Self;
GF: Grandiose Fantasy; DEV: Devaluing; ER: Entitlement Rage; Sample sizes for each bivariate correlation are presented in the upper
diagonal. Cronbach's alphas are presented in the diagonal. All correlations without a subscript are significant at p < .01. a = p < .05; b= p > .05.
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
3651 3647 3649 3650 3651 3650 3651 3652 3652
3651 3647 3649 3650 3651 3650 3651 3652 3652
3651 3647 3649 3650 3651 3650 3651 3652 3652
3650 3646 3648 3649 3650 3649 3650 3651 3651
2723 2722 2721 2723 2723 2723 2723 2723 2723
2724 2723 2722 2723 2723 2725 2724 2725 2725
3650 3648 3648 3649 3650 3650 3650 3651 3651
3648 3645 3646 3647 3647 3647 3648 3648 3648
3648 3645 3646 3648 3649 3648 3648 3649 3649
3648 3645 3646 3648 3649 3648 3648 3649 3649
3647 3645 3645 3647 3648 3648 3647 3648 3648
4043 4040 4041 4044 4044 4043 4043 4044 4045
.84 4063 4065 4065 4064 4065 4067 4067 4067
.145 .78 4062 4062 4061 4063 4063 4063 4063
.415 .232 .70 4063 4062 4063 4065 4065 4065
.434 .201 .310 .75 4064 4064 4065 4065 4066
.420 .292 .462 .355 .79 4064 4064 4065 4065
.576 .264 .372 .466 .400 .75 4065 4066 4066
.553 .377 .419 .345 .479 .629 .73 4067 4067
.437 .691 .736 .390 .802 .464 .573 .81 4068
.822 .306 .479 .714 .522 .838 .789 .587 .89
3.079 3.217 3.863 3.630 3.705 2.775 2.946 3.596 3.108
1.195 1.080 0.970 1.117 1.141 1.051 1.036 0.793 0.871
Table 3
Factor Loadings from Study 1.
Narcissism Narcissistic Agentic Self-centered
operationalization neuroticism extraversion antagonism
PNI-Total 0.904 0.176 0.373
PNI-Vulnerability 0.843 -0.038 0.484
PNI-Grandiosity 0.783 0.558 0.049
PNI-CSE 0.760 -0.134 0.405
PNI-SSSE 0.752 0.287 -0.068
PNI-GF 0.705 0.412 0.053
PNI-HS 0.681 -0.102 0.042
PNI-DEV 0.663 -0.054 0.475
PNI-ER 0.583 0.223 0.607
HSNS 0.465 -0.077 0.618
Dirty Dozen 0.388 0.476 0.414
PNI-EXP 0.300 0.616 0.128
NARQ 0.245 0.558 0.623
NARQ-R 0.214 0.179 0.776
DSM-IV NPD 0.205 0.416 0.582
NARQ-A 0.190 0.744 0.239
PES 0.129 0.432 0.541
SINS 0.066 0.281 0.506
NPI-EE 0.014 0.303 0.619
NPI-Total -0.043 0.873 0.290
NPI-GE -0.046 0.673 0.255
NPI-LA -0.071 0.795 0.088
Note. The scales were ordered based on the factor loading on the Narcissistic Neuroticism
factor—the factor with the largest eigenvalue and explained variance.
Table 4
Description of Data Sources for Study 2
Sample Description Measures Sample size Mage (SD) % Source
available Female
Samples 1-27 A combination of 27 NARQ-S; 15,832 33.13 63.7% Leckelt et al., 2019
convenience and NPI (16.27)
representative samples
from a validation
project for the NARQ-
S.
Sample 28 A large internet SINS 139,748 42.53 54.0% not published
sample validating a (13.99)
single-item measure of
narcissism
Sample 29 Internet sample for NPI, 3,794 35.09 72.0% Wetzel et al., 2021
validating the B-PNI NARQ, (13.39)
B-PNI
Sample 30 Internet sample NPI 2,200 25.99 74.5% Foster, Campbell, &
(9.14) Twenge, 2003
Sample 31 MTurk NPI 3,078 32.46 56.1% Leckelt, Back, Foster,
(11.86) Hutteman, et al., 2016
Sample 32 MTurk NPI, PES, 2,647 32.57 65.4% Leckelt, Back, Foster,
HSNS (11.57) Hutteman, et al., 2016
Sample 33 Online internet sample NPI 1,572 41.42 42.3% Bianchi et al., 2014
(11.13)
Sample 34 MTurk NPI 1,113 32.94 45.6% not published
(9.93)
Sample 35 Internet sample NPI 10,579 34.97 42.4% not published
available from (13.46)
openpsychometrics.org
Sample 36 2013 wave of the New PES 18,261 45.75 63.1% New Zealand Attitudes and
Zealand Attitudes and (14.67) Values Study (Stronge,
Values Survey Milojev, & Sibley, 2018)
Sample 37 Internet sample HSNS, 32,277 29.19 38.2% not published
available from DDN (11.34)
openpsychometrics.org
Sample 38 Undergraduate subject B-PNI 899 19.75 69.6% not published
pool (1.66)
Sample 39 Undergraduate subject B-PNI 545 19.44 72.2% Hopwood et al., 2011
pool (1.31)
Sample 40 The National DSM-IV 34,653 49.06 57.97% Bianchi et al., 2014
Epidemiologic Survey NPD (17.30)
of Alcohol and Related
Conditions (wave 2)
Sample 41 Community/clinical B-PNI 249 27.85 55.0% Edershile et al., 2018
sample from the (6.27)
Western New York
area
Sample 42 Community/clinical B-PNI 311 42.61 63.0% not published
sample from the (12.79)
Pittsburgh area
Table 5
Description of Data Sources for Study 2
Sample Sample size Mage (SD) Age range % Female
NPI 32,248 31.87 (12.47) 15-86 56.8
HSNS 34,922 29.19 (11.34) 18-99 38.2
DDN 32,277 28.91 (11.28) 18-99 35.9
PES 20,532 45.75 (14.67) 18-94 63.1
DSM-IV NPD 34,653 49.06 (17.30) 20-89 57.97
NARQ-S 19,591 33.46 (15.73) 14-96 65.8
SINS 139,748 42.53 (13.99) 18-99 54.0
B-PNI 5,802 31.34 (13.38) 18-77 72.0
Note. These are measure/data set-specific sample sizes which includes redundant participants that are included in
data sets (see Table 2) that include multiple measures of narcissism. Note, some participants had missing data on
one or two variables.
Table 6
Summary of Age, Gender, and Age x Gender Effects Across the Eight Narcissism Measures
Measure Age Gender Age x gender Age2 Age2 x gender
NPI total -.17 -.12 .002
NPI Leadership/Authority -.07 -.11 .01
NPI Entitlement/Exploitativeness -.09 -.08 -.004 -.02 .001
NPI Grandiose Exhibitionism -.16 -.03 -.01 .03 .01
Hypersensitive Narcissism -.15 -.10 -.06 -.02 .03
Dirty Dozen Narcissism -.16 -.20 -.05 -.02 .02
PES -.16 -.12 -.02 -.03 .001
DSM-IV NPD -.16 -.11 .002
NARQ-S total -.12 -.16 .01
NARQ-S Admiration -.10 -.12 -.01
NARQ-S Rivalry -.14 -.17 -.001 .04 .02
SINS -.23 -.15 -.004 .07 .01
B-PNI Grandiosity -.19 -.14 -.01
B-PNI Vulnerability -.15 -.01 -.04
Note. The standardized regression coefficients are reported (b). Coefficients in bold are
significant (p < .05). If only linear age effects are reported, these models were chosen, and the
quadratic did not significantly explain variance beyond the linear age effect. If both coefficients
are reported, the linear + quadratic model was chosen.
Figure 1
Forest Plots of the Effects of Age (Figure 1a) and Age2 (Figure 1b) Across Inventories
Figure 1a: Age Figure 1b: Age2

Figure 2
Forest Plot of the Effects of Gender
Figure 3
Forest Plots of the Effects of Age x Gender (3a), and Age2 x Gender (3b)
Figure 3a: Age x Gender Figure 3b: Age2 x Gender

Supplemental Tables
Supplemental Table 1
Age Differences in NPI Scores
95% Confidence 95% Confidence
Step 1 interval Step 2 interval
NPI-Total b SE β t p LB UB b SE β t p LB UB
Intercept 50.17 .06 910.11 < .001 50.06 50.28 50.15 .07 675.07 < .001 50.00 50.29
Age -.13 .004 -.17 -30.04 < .001 -.14 -.12 -.14 .01 -.17 -21.86 < .001 -.15 -.12
Gender -1.24 .06 -.12 -22.42 < .001 -1.34 -1.13 -1.24 .07 -.12 -16.63 < .001 -1.38 -1.09
Age × Gender .001 .004 .002 .28 .78 -.01 .01 .001 .01 .002 .23 .82 -.01 .01
Age2 < .001 < .001 .004 .48 .63 < .001 .001
Age2 × Gender < .001 < .001 < .001 -.03 .98 -.001 .001
2
R .04 .04
F(3,32111) = F(5,32109) =
F 469.12 < .001 281.51 < .001
2
ΔR < .001
ΔF .12 .89

Leadership/Authority b SE β t p LB UB b SE β t p LB UB
Intercept 50.15 .06 894.54 < .001 50.04 50.26 50.21 .08 665.89 < .001 50.06 50.36
Age -.06 .004 -.07 -12.61 < .001 -.07 -.05 -.05 .01 -.07 -8.22 < .001 -.06 -.04
Gender -1.07 .06 -.11 -19.17 < .001 -1.18 -.97 -1.02 .08 -.10 -13.58 < .001 -1.17 -.88
Age × Gender .004 .004 .01 .84 .40 -.01 .01 .01 .01 .01 1.25 .21 -.004 .02
Age2 < .001 < .001 -.01 -1.19 .24 -.001 < .001
2
Age × Gender < .001 < .001 -.01 -.96 .34 -.001 < .001
R2 .02 .02
F F(3,31857) = < .001 F(5,31855) = < .001
174.24 105.07
ΔR2 < .001
ΔF 1.31 .27

Entitlement/
Exploitativeness b SE β t p LB UB b SE β t p LB UB
Intercept 50.11 .06 894.46 < .001 50.00 50.22 50.24 .08 666.81 < .001 50.09 50.39
Age -.08 .004 -.10 -18.56 < .001 -.09 -.08 -.07 .01 -.09 -11.47 < .001 -.08 -.06
Gender -.79 .06 -.08 -14.16 < .001 -.90 -.68 -.79 .08 -.08 -10.54 < .001 -.94 -.65
Age × Gender -.002 .004 -.003 -.49 .63 -.01 .01 -.003 .01 -.004 -.45 .65 -.02 .01
Age2 -.001 < .001 -.02 -2.60 .01 -.001 < .001
Age2 × Gender < .001 < .001 .001 .08 .94 -.001 .001
2
R .02 .02
F(3,31841) = F(5,31839) =
F 183.64 < .001 111.56 < .001
2
ΔR < .001
ΔF 3.40 .03

Grandiose
Exhibitionism b SE β t p LB UB b SE β t p LB UB
Intercept 50.04 .06 894.43 < .001 49.93 50.15 49.84 .08 662.53 < .001 49.70 50.00
Age -.11 .004 -.14 -24.76 < .001 -.12 -.10 -.13 .01 -.16 -20.46 < .001 -.14 -.12
Gender -.25 .06 -.03 -4.46 < .001 -.36 -.14 -.28 .08 -.03 -3.72 < .001 -.43 -.13
Age × Gender -.01 .004 -.01 -1.90 .06 -.02 < .001 -.01 .01 -.01 -1.65 .10 -.02 .002
Age2 .001 < .001 .03 3.94 < .001 .001 .002
Age2 × Gender < .001 < .001 .01 .51 .61 < .001 .001
R2 .02 .02
F(3, 31845) = F(5, 31843) =
F 220.87 < .001 135.86 < .001
ΔR2 .001
ΔF 8.20 < .001
Note. Gender: -1 = Men, 1 = Women.
Age Differences in HSNS scores
b SE β t p LB UB b SE β t p LB UB
Intercept 49.82 .05 914.65 < .001 49.71 49.93 49.91 .07 712.97 < .001 49.78 50.05
Age -.14 .01 -.16 -30.26 < .001 -.15 -.13 -.13 .01 -.15 -19.09 < .001 -.15 -.12
Gender -.84 .05 -.08 -15.40 < .001 -.95 -.73 -.98 .07 -.10 -13.96 < .001 -1.11 -.84
Age × Gender -.04 .01 -.04 -8.02 < .001 -.05 -.03 -.05 .01 -.06 -7.65 < .001 -.07 -.04
Age2 -.001 < .001 -.02 -2.13 .03 -.001 < .001
Age2 × Gender .001 < .001 .03 3.17 .002 < .001 .002
2
R .04 .04
F(3,34562) = F(5,34560) =
F 413.43 < .001 241.65 < .001
2
ΔR < .001
ΔF 8.70 < .001
Age Differences in Dirty Dozen Narcissism
Intercept 49.47 .06 876.98 < .001 49.36 49.58 49.56 .07 682.80 < .001 49.42 49.70
Age -.10 .01 -.17 -31.00 < .001 -.16 -.14 -.14 .01 -.16 -19.45 < .001 -.16 -.13
Gender -1.95 .06 -.19 -34.57 < .001 -2.06 -1.84 -2.06 .07 -.20 -28.41 < .001 -2.20 -1.92
Age × Gender -.03 .01 -.03 -5.95 < .001 -.04 -.02 -.04 .01 -.05 -5.77 < .001 -.06 -.03
Age2 -.001 < .001 -.02 -1.98 .05 -.001 < .001
Age2 × Gender .001 < .001 .02 2.51 .01 < .001 .002
2
R .07 .07
F(3, 31920) = F(5, 31918) =
F 762.75 < .001 460.43 < .001
2
ΔR < .001
ΔF 6.56 < .001
Age Differences in PES Scores
95% 95%
Confidence Confidence
Intercept 50.28 .08 656.85 < .001 50.13 50.43 50.54 .10 523.96 < .001 50.35 50.73
Age -.11 .01 -.16 -20.61 < .001 -.12 -.10 -.11 .01 -.16 -20.36 < .001 -.12 -.10
Gender -1.21 .08 -.12 -15.75 < .001 -1.36 -1.06 -1.22 .10 -.12 -12.67 < .001 -1.41 -1.03
Age × Gender -.01 .01 -.02 -2.26 .02 -.02 -.002 -.02 .01 -.02 -2.91 .004 -.03 -.01
Age2 -.001 < .001 -.03 -4.44 < .001 -.002 -.001
Age2 × Gender < .001 < .001 .001 .15 .88 -.001 .001
2
R .04 .04
F(3,17879) = F(5,17877) =
F 218.93 < .001 135.49 < .001
2
ΔR .001
ΔF 10.00 < .001
Age Differences in DSM-IV NPD Scores
Intercept 50.61 .06 889.14 < .001 50.50 50.73 49.96 .06 788.07 < .001 49.83 50.09
Age -.09 .002 -.16 -41.77 < .001 -.10 -.09 -.11 .002 -.17 -43.70 < .001 -.11 -.10
Gender -1.15 .03 -.11 -41.59 < .001 -1.21 -1.10 -1.04 .04 -.10 -31.08 < .001 -1.11 -.97
Age × Gender .003 .003 .002 .89 .38 -.004 .010 .003 .004 .002 .69 .49 -.01 .01
Age2 .002 < .001 .08 19.88 < .001 .002 .002
Age2 × Gender -.001 < .001 -.02 -5.29 < .001 -.001 -.001
2
R .04 .05
F(3, 34650) = F(5, 34648) =
F 1906.90 < .001 1229.68 < .001
2
ΔR .01
ΔF 170.00 < .001
Age Differences in NARQ-S Scores
NARQ-Total b SE β t p LB UB b SE β t p LB UB
Intercept 50.52 .07 679.22 < .001 50.38 50.67 50.40 .10 489.41 < .001 50.19 50.60
Age -.08 .01 -.12 -16.76 < .001 -.09 -.07 -.09 .01 -.14 -12.05 < .001 -.10 -.07
Gender -1.68 .07 -.16 -22.61 < .001 -1.83 -1.54 -1.83 .10 -.17 -17.75 < .001 -2.03 -1.63
Age × Gender .004 .01 .01 .77 .44 -.01 .01 -.01 .01 -.01 -1.07 .29 -.02 .01
Age2 .001 < .001 .02 1.87 .06 < .001 .001
Age2 × Gender .001 < .001 .03 2.15 .03 < .001 .001
2
R .04 .04
F(3, 19275) = F(5, 19273) =
F 255.09 < .001 155.38 < .001
2
ΔR .001
ΔF 5.63 .004

NARQ-
Admiration b SE β t p LB UB b SE β t p LB UB
Intercept 50.39 .08 676.10 < .001 50.25 50.54 50.42 .10 489.00 < .001 50.22 50.62
Age -.07 .01 -.10 -14.02 < .001 -.07 -.06 -.06 .01 -.10 -8.65 < .001 -.08 -.05
Gender -1.24 .08 -.12 -16.63 < .001 -1.39 -1.09 -1.38 .10 -.13 -13.37 < .001 -1.58 -1.18
Age × Gender -.003 .01 -.01 -.75 .46 -.01 .01 -.01 .01 -.02 -1.98 .05 -.03 < .001
Age2 < .001 < .001 -.003 -.30 .77 -.001 < .001
2
Age × Gender .001 < .001 .03 1.97 .05 < .001 .001
2
R .02 .02
F(3,19532) = F(5,19530) =
F 155.97 < .001 94.38 < .001
ΔR2 < .001

ΔF 1.98 .14

NARQ-Rivalry b SE β t p LB UB b SE β t p LB UB
Intercept 50.51 .07 679.98 < .001 50.37 50.66 50.28 .10 489.45 < .001 50.08 50.48
Age -.07 .01 -.11 -15.52 < .001 -.08 -.06 -.09 .01 -.14 -12.43 < .001 -.10 -.08
Gender -1.64 .07 -.16 -22.08 < .001 -1.79 -1.49 -1.75 .10 -.17 -17.03 < .001 -1.95 -1.55
Age × Gender .01 .01 .01 1.68 .09 -.001 .02 -.001 .01 -.001 -.08 .94 -.02 .01
Age2 .001 < .001 .04 3.40 .001 < .001 .002
2
Age × Gender < .001 < .001 .02 1.70 .09 < .001 .001
2
R .04 .04
F(3,19423) = F(5,19421) =
F 233.17 < .001 143.87 < .001
2
ΔR .001
ΔF 9.61 < .001
Age Differences in SINS Scores
Intercept 50.12 .03 1926.64 < .001 50.07 50.17 49.54 .04 1416.42 < .001 49.47 49.61
Age -.16 .002 -.22 -83.48 < .001 -.16 -.15 -.17 .002 -.23 -87.10 < .001 -.17 -.16
Gender -1.45 .03 -.15 -55.68 < .001 -1.50 -1.40 -1.51 .04 -.15 -43.14 < .001 -1.58 -1.44
Age × Gender -.001 .002 -.002 -.60 .55 -.01 .003 -.003 .002 -.004 -1.68 .09 -.01 .001
Age2 .003 < .001 .07 24.84 < .001 .003 .003
Age2 × Gender < .001 < .001 .01 3.83 < .001 < .001 .001
2
R .07 .07
F(3, 138124) = F(5, 138122) =
F 3420.36 < .001 2188.66 < .001
2
ΔR .004
ΔF 317.59 < .001
Age Differences in B-PNI Scores
95%
Confidence 95% Confidence
B-PNI
Grandiosity b SE β t p LB UB b SE β t p LB UB
Intercept 50.69 .14 356.26 < .001 50.41 50.97 50.72 .20 249.17 < .001 50.32 51.12
Age -.14 .01 -.19 -13.45 < .001 -.16 -.12 -.14 .02 -.19 -9.39 < .001 -.17 -.11
Gender -1.58 .14 -.14 -11.08 < .001 -1.86 -1.30 -1.61 .20 -.14 -7.90 < .001 -2.01 -1.21
Age × Gender -.01 .01 -.01 -.59 .56 -.03 .01 -.01 .02 -.01 -.57 .57 -.04 .02
Age2 < .001 .001 -.004 -.19 .85 -.002 .001
2
Age × Gender < .001 .001 .01 .21 .83 -.001 .002
R2 .06 .06
F(3,5772) = F(5,5770) =
F 115.45 < .001 69.26 < .001
ΔR2 < .001
ΔF .03 .97
95%
Confidence 95% Confidence
B-PNI
Vulnerability b SE β t p LB UB b SE β t p LB UB
Intercept 50.06 .15 346.02 < .001 49.78 50.35 50.20 .21 242.56 < .001 49.80 50.61
Age -.11 .01 -.15 -10.14 < .001 -.13 -.09 -.10 .02 -.13 -6.54 < .001 -.13 -.07
Gender -.15 .15 -.01 -1.07 .29 -.44 .13 -.36 .21 -.03 -1.74 .08 -.77 .05
Age × Gender -.03 .01 -.04 -2.47 .01 -.05 -.01 -.04 .02 -.06 -2.73 .01 -.07 -.01
Age2 -.001 .001 -.02 -.91 .36 -.002 .001
2
Age × Gender .001 .001 .03 1.38 .17 < .001 .003
R2 .03 .03
F(3,5771) = F(5,5769) =
F 52.73 < .001 32.05 < .001
ΔR2 < .001
ΔF 1.02 .36
Supplementary Table 10
Age Differences in BPNI Facet Scores

95% Confidence
Step 1 Interval Step 2 95% Confidence Interval
BPNI-Exploitativeness b SE β t p LB UB b SE β t p LB UB
Intercept 50.61 .14 350.30 < .001 50.33 50.89 50.56 .21 244.65 < .001 50.15 50.96
Age -.09 .01 -.12 -8.44 < .001 -.11 -.07 -.09 .02 -.13 -6.23 < .001 -.12 -.06
Gender -1.38 .14 -.12 -9.56 < .001 -1.67 -1.10 -1.18 .21 -.11 -5.69 < .001 -1.58 -.77
Age × Gender .02 .01 .02 1.50 .14 -.01 .04 .03 .02 .04 2.04 .04 .001 .06
Age2 < .001 .001 .01 .34 .73 -.001 .002
Age2 × Gender -.001 .001 -.03 -1.39 .16 -.003 < .001
2
R .03 .03
F(3, 5772) = F(5, 5770) =
F 55.16 < .001 33.50 < .001
2
ΔR < .001
ΔF 1.01 .36
95% Confidence
BPNI-Self-sacrificing
Self-enhancement b SE β t p LB UB b SE β t p LB UB
Intercept 50.18 .15 345.90 < .001 49.90 50.47 50.17 .21 241.64 < .001 49.76 50.58
Age -.09 .01 -.12 -8.22 < .001 -.11 -.07 -.09 .02 -.12 -5.88 < .001 -.12 -.06
Gender -.42 .15 -.04 -2.90 .004 -.71 -.14 -.58 .21 -.05 -2.79 .01 -.99 -.17
Age × Gender -.03 .01 -.04 -2.81 .01 -.05 -.01 -.04 .02 -.06 -2.75 .01 -.07 -.01
Age2 .001 .002 .10 .92 -.002 .002
2
Age × Gender .001 .001 .03 1.08 .28 -.001 .002
2
R .02 .02
F(3, 5766) = F(5, 5764) =

F 40.87 < .001 24.83 < .001
ΔR2 < .001
ΔF .77 .46
95% Confidence
BPNI-Grandiose Fantasy b SE β t p LB UB b SE β t p LB UB
Intercept 50.57 .14 354.74 < .001 50.29 50.85 50.73 .20 248.74 < .001 50.33 51.13
Age -.14 .01 -.19 -13.15 < .001 -.16 -.12 -.13 .02 -.17 -8.56 < .001 -.16 -.10
Gender -1.32 .14 -.12 -9.24 < .001 -1.60 -1.04 -1.67 .20 -.15 -8.17 < .001 -2.07 -1.27
Age × Gender -.03 .01 -.04 -2.82 .01 -.05 -.01 -.06 .02 -.07 -3.69 < .001 -.08 -.03
Age2 -.001 .001 -.02 -1.06 .29 -.002 .001
Age2 × Gender .002 .001 .06 2.40 .02 < .001 .004
2
R .06 .06
F(3, 5764) = F(5, 5762) =
F 113.03 < .001 69.01 < .001
2
ΔR .001
ΔF 2.88 .06
95% Confidence
BPNI-Contingent Self-
esteem b SE β t p LB UB b SE β t p LB UB
Intercept 50.03 .15 345.13 < .001 49.75 50.31 49.93 .21 240.88 < .001 49.53 50.34
Age -.11 .01 -.14 -9.86 < .001 -.13 -.09 -.11 .02 -.15 -7.47 < .001 -.14 -.08
Gender -.06 .15 -.01 -.43 .67 -.35 .22 -.32 .21 -.03 -1.55 .12 -.73 .09
Age × Gender -.02 .01 -.03 -1.87 .06 -.04 .001 -.04 .02 -.05 -2.56 .01 -.07 -.01
Age2 .001 .001 .01 .69 .49 -.001 .002
2
Age × Gender .001 .001 .04 1.76 .08 < .001 .003
R2 .02 .03
F(3, 5771) = F(5, 5769) =
F 46.97 < .001 29.33 < .001
ΔR2 .001
ΔF 2.83 .06
95% Confidence
BPNI-Hiding the Self b SE β t p LB UB b SE β t p LB UB
Intercept 49.99 .15 344.06 < .001 49.70 50.27 50.20 .21 241.54 < .001 49.79 50.61
Age -.10 .01 -.14 -9.37 < .001 -.12 -.08 -.09 .02 -.11 -5.64 < .001 -.12 -.06
Gender .01 .15 .001 .07 .94 -.27 .30 -.11 .21 -.01 -.51 .61 -.51 .30
< <
Age × Gender .001 .01 .001 .03 .98 -.02 .02 -.01 .02 -.01 -.53 .59 -.04 .02
Age2 -.001 .001 -.03 -1.41 .16 -.003 < .001
Age2 × Gender .001 .001 .02 .77 .44 -.001 .002
2
R .02 .02
F(3, 5771) = F(5, 5769) =
F 35.40 < .001 21.64 < .001
2
ΔR < .001
ΔF 1.01 .36
95% Confidence
BPNI-Devaluing b SE β t p LB UB b SE β t p LB UB
Intercept 50.14 .15 344.08 < .001 49.86 50.43 50.35 .21 241.58 < .001 49.94 50.76
Age -.09 .01 -.11 -7.88 < .001 -.11 -.06 -.07 .02 -.09 -4.57 < .001 -.10 -.04
Gender -.32 .15 -.03 -2.17 .03 -.60 -.03 -.15 .21 -.01 -.74 .46 -.56 .26
Age × Gender .001 .01 .001 .06 .95 -.02 .02 .01 .02 .02 .82 .41 -.02 .04
Age2 -.001 .001 -.03 -1.45 .15 -.003 < .001
Age2 × Gender -.001 .001 -.03 -1.12 .26 -.003 .001

2
R .01 .01
F(3, 5769) = F(5, 5767) =
F 26.32 < .001 16.97 < .001
2
ΔR .001
ΔF 2.92 .05
95% Confidence
BPNI-Entitlement Rage b SE β t p LB UB b SE β t p LB UB
Intercept 50.24 .15 345.01 < .001 49.95 50.52 50.34 .21 241.61 < .001 49.93 50.75
Age -.06 .01 -.08 -5.38 < .001 -.08 -.04 -.05 .02 -.07 -3.34 .001 -.08 -.02
Gender -.55 .15 -.05 -3.78 < .001 -.84 -.27 -.75 .21 -.07 -3.60 < .001 -1.16 -.34
Age × Gender -.04 .01 -.05 -3.77 < .001 -.06 -.02 -.06 .02 -.07 -3.61 < .001 -.09 -.03
Age2 -.001 .001 -.01 -.66 .51 -.002 .001
Age2 × Gender .001 .001 .03 1.33 .19 -.001 .003
R2 .02 .02
F(3, 5769) = F(5, 5767) =
F 28.89 < .001 17.69 < .001
ΔR2 < .001
ΔF .89 .41
Supplemental Figures
For all figures, mean observations are only plotted if they exceed N=20. Figure axes are scaled to allow comparability of results across
scales.
Supplemental Figure 1
Age Differences in the NPI: NPI-Total (Figure 1a), Leadership/Authority (Figure 1b), Entitlement/Exploitativeness (Figure 1c), and Grandiose
Exhibitionism (Figure 1d)
80 80
1a 1b
NPI-Leadership/Authority
70 70
60 60
NPI-Total
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
15 35 55 75 95 15 35 55 75 95
Age Age
80 1c 80 1d
Entitlement/Exploitativeness
70 NPI-Grandiose 70
Exhibitionism
60 60
50 50
NPI-
40 40
30 30
20 20
15 35 55 75 95 15 35 55 75 95
Age Age
Age Differences in the HSNS (Hypersensitive Narcissism; Figure 2a) and Age2 x Gender Interaction (Figure 2b)
80
2a
70
60
50
40
30
20
15 35 55 75 95
Age
Men Women Regression line (Men) Regression line (Women) 2b

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95
Age
Age Differences in the Dirty Dozen Narcissism (Figure 3a) and Age2 x Gender Interaction (Figure 3b)
80 3a
Dirty Dozen Narcissism
70
60
50
40
30
20
15 35 55 75 95
Age
Men Women 3b
Regression line (Men) Regression line (Women)
80
Dirty Dozen Narcissism
70
60
50
40
30
20
15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95
Age
Age Differences in the PES
80
Psychological Entitlement
70
60
50
40
30
20
15 35 55 75 95
Age
Age Differences in the DSM-IV NPD: 5a (DSM-IV NPD) and 5b (age2 x gender interaction)
80
5a
70
DSM-IV NPD
60
50
40
30
20
15 35 55 75 95
Age
Men Women 5b
80
70
DSM-IV NPD
60
50
40
30
20
15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95
Age
Age Differences in the NARQ: NARQ-Total (Figure 6a), NARQ-Admiration (Figure 6b), NARQ-Rivalry (Figure 6c), and Age2 x Gender
Interaction for NARQ-Total (Figure 6d)
80
6b
80 70
NARQ-Rivalry
6a
70 60
50
NARQ-Total
60
50 40
40 30
30 20
15 35 55 75 95
20 Age
15 35 55 75 95
Age
6d
Men
80 80 Women
6c Regression line (Men)
70 70
NARQ-Admiration
Regression line (Women)

60 NARQ-Total 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
15 35 55 75 95 15 35 55 75 95
Age Age
Age Differences in SINS Narcissism (Figure 7a) and Age2 x Gender Interaction (Figure 7b)
65
80
6c 7a
70
NARQ-Admiration
60
SINS Narcissism
60
55
50
50
40
45
30
40
20
15
15 35
35 5555 75 75 95 95
Age
Age
Men Women
7b
80
70
SINS Narcissism
60
50
40
30
20
15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95
Age
Age Differences in the B-PNI Grandiosity (Figure 8a) and Vulnerability (Figure 8b)
80 80
8a 8b
70 70
B-PNI Vulnerability
B-PNI Grandiosity
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
15 35 55 75 95 15 35 55 75 95
Age Age

Age and Gender Differences in Narcissism: A Comprehensive Study Across Eight Measures and Over 250,000 Participants

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Age and Gender Differences in Narcissism: A Comprehensive Study Across Eight Measures and Over 250,000 Participants

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AGE AND GENDER DIFFERENCES IN NARCISSISM MEASURES 1

Age and Gender Differences in Narcissism:

Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis

Aidan G.C. Wright

Corresponding author’s contact information: Rebekka Weidmann, Department of

weidma12@msu.edu. Rebekka Weidmann is also an Adjunct Senior Researcher at University of

provided on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/gp6a4/

Ministry of Research, Innovation, and Science (ER16-12-169), and Templeton Pathways to

This research was further supported by a Postdoc.Mobility Fellowship (P400PS_186724) of the

Development (R25-HD083146), and Heterodox Academy, while writing this manuscript.

narcissism instruments (i.e., Narcissistic Personality Inventory, Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale,

Pathological Narcissism Inventory). The findings of Study 1 (N = 5,736) revealed heterogeneity

Keywords: narcissism; age differences; assessment; adult development; cohort

Age Differences in Narcissism:

A Comprehensive Study Across Eight Measures and Over 250,000 Participants

a proliferation of measures of individual differences in narcissism. Some measures focus on the

respect to narcissism. Research on cross-sectional age and gender differences is sparsely

The Definition of Narcissism

A portion of the history of narcissism research is characterized by a series of defining, re-

Narcissism is a multidimensional construct that embodies a broad range of characteristic

individual differences in narcissism can be understood from a trifurcated perspective (Ackerman

reflects a tendency toward thoughts and behaviors characterized as egotistical, assertive,

narcissism might differ across the lifespan.

Theoretical Assumptions and Longitudinal Evidence of Age Differences in Narcissism

Theoretical Approaches to Understanding the Lifespan Development of Narcissism

To understand how age differences in narcissism emerge, we draw upon several

as unproductive for pursuing long-term relationships and organizational citizenship behavior.

& Strube, 2011).

the expectations of long-term social roles.

people’s personality toward a mature direction—potentially marked with decreases in

antagonistic narcissism is related to lower levels of agreeableness, agentic narcissism linked to

In addition, opportunities to fail—and the actual number of failures—increases with age.

an individual difference characteristic. These theoretical postulations would be reflected in cross-

compared to younger adults.

Evaluating the Current Generational and Longitudinal Evidence of Lifespan Differences in

using six items of the NPI.

others measure entitlement or neurotic narcissism, or general narcissism. Having an

complete picture of how narcissism differs across adult life stages.

Cross-Sectional Age Differences in Narcissism across Instruments

Using the above-mentioned narcissism measures, previous studies have formally

interactions) and draw preliminary comparisons across different inventories.

Gender Differences in Narcissism across Instruments

narcissism—especially grandiose narcissism—embodies several agentic characteristics, social

another potential reason for disparities in narcissism across gender.

Previous research paints a consistent picture of gender differences in narcissism: Men

women and men.

Age x Gender Interactions in Narcissism across Instruments

women as different as younger men and women in their narcissism?

or the accumulation or abatement of their influences over time—might manifest themselves as

in autonomy—a close correlate of grandiose narcissism—are more dramatic than men’s

different life ages.

The Present Study

gender differences in narcissism across various narcissism measures. Specifically, no studies

across measures is unclear.

future research needs to be interpreted in the light of these instrument-dependent differences.

“narcissism” in the way that each scale defines it).

Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI)

The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) is a 40-item, forced-choice, self-report

Leadership/authority, GE: Grandiose exhibitionism, and EE: Entitlement/Exploitativeness)

identified by Ackerman and colleagues (2011).

Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale (HSNS)

(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Dirty Dozen Narcissism (DDN)

The Dark Triad is a framework that conceptualizes individual differences in three